View Full Version : TP changes with break in
Had my TP since Fri. Running it all the time.
Anyone care to share thoughts on changes with break in?
The highs seem to be improving (they were already quite good)
OK, does this question belong in audio la la land?
tyler_durden
2006-10-25, 07:27
Which is more likely to be "breaking-in", the device or your mind? My money is on YOU.
TD
Which is more likely to be "breaking-in", the device or your mind? My money is on YOU.
TD
That is a good point, and one of the reasons I like the sanity of this forum.
There is a break in time for fine classical guitars and spruce tops take much longer than cedar tops to break in....at least a year or more.
Speakers also clearly have a break in period.
Granted, these are mechanical devices with moving parts.
An electronic component ,cold, out of the box seems to change within the 1st hour.
Some claim that it will change in the 1st several 100 hours.
Is there "science" behind that belief or only subjective and highly susceptible opinion?
opaqueice
2006-10-25, 07:58
An electronic component ,cold, out of the box seems to change within the 1st hour.
Some claim that it will change in the 1st several 100 hours.
Is there "science" behind that belief or only subjective and highly susceptible opinion?
While IANAEE, I seriously doubt any such phenomenon could exist. Circuit components are simply pieces of metal and a few pieces of semi-conductor stuck together in various configurations. Sending some electrons flowing through them should have close to no effect on them whatsoever. As small a change as re-arranging an interconnect cable or moving a speaker wire should be vastly more important.
In fact if break-in existed it would be well known to researchers - in physics people all the time build *extremely* sensitive electronic devices, and if these changed over time it would screw up tons of measurements.
On the other hand your ears/brain are going to percieve changes whether or not they exist. So you decide which is more plausible...
pfarrell
2006-10-25, 08:10
tomjtx wrote:
> tyler_durden;149611 Wrote:
>> Which is more likely to be "breaking-in", the device or your mind?
>> My money is on YOU.
>
> There is a break in time for fine classical guitars and spruce tops
> take much longer than cedar tops to break in....at least a year or
> more. Speakers also clearly have a break in period. Granted, these
> are mechanical devices with moving parts.
Mechanical things have real break in times, but they are usually a lot
shorter than people expect. An automobile could take a thousand miles,
but racing car motors are broken in within a mile or so. Drag racing
motors only live for four seconds or so, from rebuild to rebuild.
Hammocks require serious break in time.
> An electronic component ,cold, out of the box seems to change within
> the 1st hour. Some claim that it will change in the 1st several 100
> hours. Is there "science" behind that belief or only subjective and
> highly susceptible opinion?
There is accepted science that capacitors take a while to "form up".
I think the time is accurately measured in charge/discharge cycles,
rather than minutes. Folks rebuilding old radios use variable voltage
sources to slowly apply AC voltage over minutes.
There is also accepted management science about buyer's remorse.
I expect that most of the 'break-in' time associated with audiophile
stuff is really overcoming the buyer's remorse. That a solid state
amplifier would sound significantly better after 100 hours of operation
is hard for me to believe from an engineering view. And if it was real,
an audiophile would reasonably expect that the manufacturer make 100
hours of playing music be part of the manufacturing line process for
amps costing as much as a car.
--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html
Mark Lanctot
2006-10-25, 08:13
In fact if break-in existed it would be well known to researchers - in physics people all the time build *extremely* sensitive electronic devices, and if these changed over time it would screw up tons of measurements.
Exactly - think how expensive and critical a satellite is. There are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of solder joints. Every one must be carefully inspected - there are actually "solder engineers" that do this.
Every cable must be tested and checked as well. You don't want this to fail in orbit!
I wonder if those guys believe in the concept of burn-in? I don't think so. While they do power it up and leave various circuits running, this is only to test it and make sure there are no defective components (if it runs for 100 hours on the bench, it probably will for another 100 000 hours in orbit), not to let it burn in.
They would definitely not want the operating characteristics to drift over time.
The only pseudo-scientific explanation for burn-in I've seen mentioned is "electron creep". Sounds shaky at best, and google can't even locate any links on it.
On the other hand your ears/brain are going to percieve changes whether or not they exist. So you decide which is more plausible...
Yes, the brain will adjust and get used to how things sound. You even get used to speaker colouration - extremely flat FR speakers aren't usually perceived as pleasant because our minds grow used to what less-perfect speakers sound like.
On subtle things like sound, our brain and how it perceives/interprets it plays a very large role. It can completely fool you, which is why ABX tests are so important.
Mark Lanctot
2006-10-25, 08:25
That a solid state
amplifier would sound significantly better after 100 hours of operation
is hard for me to believe from an engineering view. And if it was real,
an audiophile would reasonably expect that the manufacturer make 100
hours of playing music be part of the manufacturing line process for
amps costing as much as a car.
I see what you mean about amps - one day I'd like to go for Bryston amps, and they do adhere to the burn-in idea:
http://www.bryston.ca/14bsst_m.html
Unique Burn-In Procedure:
Each and every Bryston product undergoes a very extensive “burn-in” procedure. Following a complete operational checkout, every amplifier is placed on a test-bench and cycled on and off at one hour intervals for 4 days at full output. This extremely rigorous burn-in quickly “matures” components and weeds out any potential premature failures.
At least they admit it's for weeding out failures, which I agree is useful. As to "maturing" components, ?
Can't argue with a 20-year warranty though.
pfarrell
2006-10-25, 08:37
Mark Lanctot wrote:
> I see what you mean about amps - one day I'd like to go for Bryston
> amps, and they do adhere to the burn-in idea:
I don't have a Bryston, the closest I got was that I considered one
before I bought my Classe
> At least they admit it's for weeding out failures, which I agree is
> useful. As to "maturing" components, ?
Marketing-speak
electronic components typically have lots of failures "infant mortality"
in the first minutes of use, and then low failures for a long time until
late in life, 5 to 10 years. Assuming you don't have power spikes, kids
pouring Koolaid into it, etc.
twenty years is longer than anyone cares, it is essentially "lifetime"
without using the words.
--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html
What about initial warmup of electronics? eg. amp , transporter etc are disconnected from the outlet. If one perceives a "hardness" to the sound for the 1st several minutes , 10 minutes or 30 minutes is there a scientific explanation for this or do most of you think this is psychological?
BTW, I don't have any opinion on this, but I know there are a lot of enginers and science savvy people on this forum and I enjoy learning about that perspective.
After all skepticism and knowledge are wonderful financial protectors in the audiophile world.
I didn't pay close attention to the exact amount of time, but I found my Transporter did change after a week or two of time (about 18 hours per day). Am pretty sure it wasn't my imagination, because every couple of days I would do an A/B with my Oracle/Dodson setup as a reference point for changes. The Transporter started out to be a little rough, a little "thumpy" in the bass, but cleaned up nicely after a week. Highs became more refined, etc. This was mostly true for the analog outs. Digital outs also seemed a little rough, but improved after just a couple of days...
byKnight
2006-10-25, 11:53
There is a break in time for fine classical guitars and spruce tops take much longer than cedar tops to break in....at least a year or more.
I thought I smelled a fellow guitar geek! :)
There's nothing like that period of time when the top on a new guitar starts to "open up."
But if you perceive a change in how the audio being pumped out of your Transporter sounds, the difference is much, much, much more likely to be ocurring in one or more of the following:
1. Your ears
2. Your brain
3. Your room
But if you perceive a change in how the audio being pumped out of your Transporter sounds, the difference is much, much, much more likely to be ocurring in one or more of the following:
1. Your ears
2. Your brain
3. Your room
How about measureable changes in capacitors? Or measureable changes in the oscillator clocks?
What about initial warmup of electronics? eg. amp , transporter etc are disconnected from the outlet. If one perceives a "hardness" to the sound for the 1st several minutes , 10 minutes or 30 minutes is there a scientific explanation for this or do most of you think this is psychological?
BTW, I don't have any opinion on this, but I know there are a lot of enginers and science savvy people on this forum and I enjoy learning about that perspective.
After all skepticism and knowledge are wonderful financial protectors in the audiophile world.
Just wanted to applaud your attitude towards the criticism -- I thought this thread might go downhill quickly when I saw the first few responses...
As for the issue at hand: I must say that based on my own experience and my amateur knowledge of electrical engineering that I am firmly with the skeptics on this one. Can't see what a burn-in period would accomplish for an electronic device.
Phil Leigh
2006-10-25, 12:51
Just wanted to applaud your attitude towards the criticism -- I thought this thread might go downhill quickly when I saw the first few responses...
As for the issue at hand: I must say that based on my own experience and my amateur knowledge of electrical engineering that I am firmly with the skeptics on this one. Can't see what a burn-in period would accomplish for an electronic device.
My experience has been the opposite! - amps etc burn-out after time...
(speakers sure do burn-in though)
byKnight
2006-10-25, 13:04
How about measureable changes in capacitors? Or measureable changes in the oscillator clocks?
What about them? I'm talking about what's audible.
If someone perceives that the sound is different today compared to yesterday, then something has changed. I think the change is more likely explained by a change in the listening environment (possibly including the listener's ear canal, sinuses, or even the part of his/her brain that processes aural input) rather than some kind of "burn-in" of electronic components.
I'm not arguing that changes don't occur to components over time due to being powered up. I'm just saying I don't think such changes would cause an audible difference in how the system sounds over the course of a few days or a week.
Not sure about burn-in time for amps. But I had a Pioneer Amp that sounded dull and unengaging when just turned on, improving after one or two hours. I noticed this every day when coming home from work. Leaving the amp on and it was OK (ish).
Not sure why, but I favourite hypothesis is that it has to do with the transistors warming up and reaching ideal temperature.
My experience has been the opposite! - amps etc burn-out after time...
(speakers sure do burn-in though)
Indeed...it would seem as though electronics should only drift further out of spec over time (not talking about the initial warm-up/charge-up time as things reach operating temperature/status).
Phil Leigh
2006-10-25, 14:33
Indeed...it would seem as though electronics should only drift further out of spec over time (not talking about the initial warm-up/charge-up time as things reach operating temperature/status).
Agreed - My Marshall sounds much better after 10 mins of valve warming!
Seems that after a few years your capacitors start to "die" (electrolytics)...and bridge rectifiers (I've had a couple of those actually crumble into dust!)
Very informative responses, thanks all
SoftwireEngineer
2006-10-25, 14:42
What about them? I'm talking about what's audible.
.
I am afraid the term 'audible' is relative, Sir.
My SB3's digital out changed over a period of time. I thought it was the linear power supply that I added that made the difference. I did an A/B with the included power supply, the difference with the linear supply was subtle and realized the SB2 overall has changed overtime.
Re: warm-up. My earlier Int. Amp Audio Refinement Complete took atleast 20min to sound 'right'. Please dont tell me I am imagining this. I have had that amp for quite a few years. That is why I like my current digital amp. Sounds the same from the moment it is switched on (probably a few seconds but I can never tell :-))
If caps can change over time, why not an amp with lots of caps inside. Actually, it is the insulation which is changing, so even wires 'break-in'. When I got my Zu Ash, suddenly the bass was too tight and hard. After a while, the sound was very comparable to my old digital interconnect when I did a A/B.
Re: instruments and other devices - If it is digital it should not matter (unless jitter is an issue). If analog, maybe people keep recalibrating the equipment or the break in even by the time, the machine is calibrated/certified.
I think the issue is real. We should not jump to simplistic conclusions.
Phil Leigh
2006-10-25, 15:03
I am afraid the term 'audible' is relative, Sir.
My SB3's digital out changed over a period of time. I thought it was the linear power supply that I added that made the difference. I did an A/B with the included power supply, the difference with the linear supply was subtle and realized the SB2 overall has changed overtime.
Re: warm-up. My earlier Int. Amp Audio Refinement Complete took atleast 20min to sound 'right'. Please dont tell me I am imagining this. I have had that amp for quite a few years. That is why I like my current digital amp. Sounds the same from the moment it is switched on (probably a few seconds but I can never tell :-))
If caps can change over time, why not an amp with lots of caps inside. Actually, it is the insulation which is changing, so even wires 'break-in'. When I got my Zu Ash, suddenly the bass was too tight and hard. After a while, the sound was very comparable to my old digital interconnect when I did a A/B.
Re: instruments and other devices - If it is digital it should not matter (unless jitter is an issue). If analog, maybe people keep recalibrating the equipment or the break in even by the time, the machine is calibrated/certified.
I think the issue is real. We should not jump to simplistic conclusions.
I often wonder if this is pure placebo. So many reviewers start out with "when i first plugged this in it sounded terrible, but after a few days it sounded ok/great/the best thing I've ever heard"...
I don't buy this whole cable burn-in argument. I think it's simply an artefact of human intelligence - ie it now sounds OK coz I'm used to it...
I find it odd that nothing ever sounds worse after time...
New active crossover boards always sound like hell to me, and get better over about a minute.
I find it odd that nothing ever sounds worse after time...
I've found some components to get worse before they get better during their burn-in period, particularly balanced amps. I generally assume that amp designers/manufacturers do most of their testing after the amps have considerable playing time to ensure the caps are fully burned in...
I really like the way valve gear warms up, and opens up, over the first quarter hour or so.
As for the Transporter, I'm reserving judgement; mine's only been playing for a few days, and it sounded pretty darn good out of the box.
Pale Blue Ego
2006-10-25, 20:15
This is a timely subject, because I've been breaking in new speakers with a FLAC file of "Stereophile's Special Burn-In Noise".
I haven't yet decided if they are improving with break-in - I'm still too pumped at how much better they are than my old ones! I think I'm gonna hafta spring for 2 or 3 more for the rear channels...
(actually, the ultimate burn-in music has to be Muslimgauze. If your system can survive that without shredding or melting, you're good to go. Maybe I'll see if I can peel the titanium off the new tweeters with a few well-chosen tracks)
My Transporter sounded awful out of the box, and if burn-in wasn't happening, it would have been returned by now. Out of the box, the mids are recessed. Bass is a smeared "one-note" affair that doesn't integrate with any of the higher frequencies. After a few hours, the mids start coming forward, and the bass begins to show some definition. That is, you can actually hear the string being plucked or picked, as opposed to simply the presence of bass noise. And no, the increased definition in the low end isn't placebo. As the unit gets some playing hours, there is definition present that simply wasn't there before. At this stage of things, I'd rate the Transporter as a better sound than my Ack! dAck!, but not up to the Bel Canto DAC2 yet. Nowhere close to any of my other sources (VPI Scoutmaster, Ariston RD11s, Meridian G08, Exemplar Denon 2900, Wadia 301). However, it's still early in the burn-in process, and it's still changing. Thankfully.
At the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest, Tyler Acoustics had a blind setup where they were asking people to distinguish between two different amplifiers. I tried it on the second day, and was able to tell the two apart very easily. However, apparently I was only the fifth person of all that had taken the test who was able to do that reliably. That shocked me completely, but if a large majority of people (presumably audiophiles at that locale) couldn't reliably tell the difference between those amps, which was night and day to me in a blind setup, I can at least understand why burn-in is controversial (and it has nothing to do with placebo effects).
ModelCitizen
2006-10-26, 05:22
(actually, the ultimate burn-in music has to be Muslimgauze. If your system can survive that without shredding or melting, you're good to go. Maybe I'll see if I can peel the titanium off the new tweeters with a few well-chosen tracks)
I guess you've not met Christian Fennesz from Touch Records (home of Biosphere) then. This is very serious burn in *music*. Scares the neighbours and passing pidgeons s***less.
MC
Deaf Cat
2006-10-26, 06:21
I remember burning in my new IC, and that went thought some changes, one evening I had to turn it down as it sounded terible all scritchy top, not a lot of bottom - it almost went back to the shop! After a couple of days it filled lowered and smoothed - lovely - but it did have me worried for a while.
Thankfully it has stayed nice :D
If this cable is just Cu, would not the tracks on the cct boards of electronic equipment and maybe other metals and materials in componects change with time.
Maybe its a reveling system that shows these differences easier and a well trained pair of ears :)
Mine are probably out of practice now at hearing differences, as they have been hearing the same kit for a good while now.
At this stage of things, I'd rate the Transporter as a better sound than my Ack! dAck!, but not up to the Bel Canto DAC2 yet. Nowhere close to any of my other sources (VPI Scoutmaster, Ariston RD11s, Meridian G08, Exemplar Denon 2900, Wadia 301). However, it's still early in the burn-in process, and it's still changing. Thankfully.
I thought out of the box, the Transporter had more detail, soundstage, imaging, et al than the DAC2, but that the DAC2 overall was more musical. But it definitely changed over time, and after about 2 weeks, I found the Transporter to be much much better...
Phil Leigh
2006-10-26, 10:27
someone mentioned burn-in and satellites?
you might find this interesting...I did:
http://lhc-workshop-2005.web.cern.ch/lhc-workshop-2005/PlenarySessions/4-Stokstad.pdf
These circuits have to be completely stable for 10 years! (after burn-in) - of course it helps (I think) that they are sitting ina VERY cold environment. Also they have no electrolytic caps - which as we know change in strange ways...if had my way they'd be outlawed!
P Floding
2006-10-26, 13:59
I see what you mean about amps - one day I'd like to go for Bryston amps, and they do adhere to the burn-in idea:
http://www.bryston.ca/14bsst_m.html
At least they admit it's for weeding out failures, which I agree is useful. As to "maturing" components, ?
Can't argue with a 20-year warranty though.
I used to have a pair of 7BST's. I think they could have sounded better if only I could get proper access to the loudspeaker terminals (for cleaning). They use annoying encapsulated terminals. (Oh, and I suspect the internal arrangement to allow bridged or parallel operation may have limited ultimate sound quality.) I didn't want to modify them due to the long warranty. They were impressive, but I'm happier with my lightly tweaked Krell FPB 200. (I haven't heard the newer 7BSST)
I thought out of the box, the Transporter had more detail, soundstage, imaging, et al than the DAC2, but that the DAC2 overall was more musical. But it definitely changed over time, and after about 2 weeks, I found the Transporter to be much much better...
It took about 72 hours of constant play before the Transporter got to a level of detail and musicality that I liked, and may not be all the way there yet. However, as the Transporter has burned in, I've become seriously impressed with the sound, which just wasn't there right out of the box. That has since fixed itself, and it now sounds very detailed and musical.
It took about 72 hours of constant play before the Transporter got to a level of detail and musicality that I liked, and may not be all the way there yet. However, as the Transporter has burned in, I've become seriously impressed with the sound, which just wasn't there right out of the box. That has since fixed itself, and it now sounds very detailed and musical.
Glad to hear it, I keep liking my TP more each day, sean did a great job IMO.
I am stunned to hear any experienced audiophile say they doubt burn in. Every time I buy a new component it is more than obvious. Perhaps the effects are a form of phase distortion some peoples' brains decode better than others.. The burn in process is not always the same, but I often find the first few seconds sound very like it will sound when burnt in (particularly cables), then it quickly deteriorates getting thin and opaque with sucked out bass. This improves slowly then switches over to lush and even gorgeous sounding, if rolled off, yet dynamically constrained. Then it opens up and gains dynamics and bass extension to settle into its burned in state. Sometimes there are wee detours along the way, but the process is often as I describe above. I think the main reason is dialectrics in cables and capacitors forming slowly, but that is at best just an informed guess. I have been able to compare burnt in versions with burning in versions of otherwise identical cables to confirm I am not mad on this - at least to my satisfaction - don't care about anyone else's. I am just stunned anyone with decent ears and a decent system has not heard it with new cables or equipment, when I have heard it so consistently. I am not doubting you have good systems and good ears, but I don't give any credence to the suggestion it is placebo. Perhaps it is that we are not all susceptible to the phase distortions created during burn in.
I am stunned to hear any experienced audiophile say they doubt burn in. Every time I buy a new component it is more than obvious. Perhaps the effects are a form of phase distortion some peoples' brains decode better than others.. The burn in process is not always the same, but I often find the first few seconds sound very like it will sound when burnt in (particularly cables), then it quickly deteriorates getting thin and opaque with sucked out bass. This improves slowly then switches over to lush and even gorgeous sounding, if rolled off, yet dynamically constrained. Then it opens up and gains dynamics and bass extension to settle into its burned in state. Sometimes there are wee detours along the way, but the process is often as I describe above. I think the main reason is dialectrics in cables and capacitors forming slowly, but that is at best just an informed guess. I have been able to compare burnt in versions with burning in versions of otherwise identical cables to confirm I am not mad on this - at least to my satisfaction - don't care about anyone else's. I am just stunned anyone with decent ears and a decent system has not heard it with new cables or equipment, when I have heard it so consistently. I am not doubting you have good systems and good ears, but I don't give any credence to the suggestion it is placebo. Perhaps it is that we are not all susceptible to the phase distortions created during burn in.
I basically agree, but your a brave man, Jenks :-)
(hope you have a fire extinguisher handy for the flames) :-)
I am stunned to hear any experienced audiophile say they doubt burn in. Every time I buy a new component it is more than obvious. Perhaps the effects are a form of phase distortion some peoples' brains decode better than others.. The burn in process is not always the same, but I often find the first few seconds sound very like it will sound when burnt in (particularly cables), then it quickly deteriorates getting thin and opaque with sucked out bass. This improves slowly then switches over to lush and even gorgeous sounding, if rolled off, yet dynamically constrained. Then it opens up and gains dynamics and bass extension to settle into its burned in state. Sometimes there are wee detours along the way, but the process is often as I describe above. I think the main reason is dialectrics in cables and capacitors forming slowly, but that is at best just an informed guess. I have been able to compare burnt in versions with burning in versions of otherwise identical cables to confirm I am not mad on this - at least to my satisfaction - don't care about anyone else's. I am just stunned anyone with decent ears and a decent system has not heard it with new cables or equipment, when I have heard it so consistently. I am not doubting you have good systems and good ears, but I don't give any credence to the suggestion it is placebo. Perhaps it is that we are not all susceptible to the phase distortions created during burn in.
Interesting. Have you tried to reverse burned-in cables and see what happens?
bludragon
2006-10-31, 12:59
IMHO, some warm up time is necessary for electronic components to be at their best, and I'm willing to believe (although I havn't seen any tests) that capacitors may improve in performance slightly with some use. However, after that they are likely to slowly degrade (especially electrolytics). I guess the need to recalibrate sensitive electronic instruments could be given as evidence to the fact that performance of electronic components can change with time.
However my take is that the biggest contributor to "break in" of audio electronics is actually the human brain. As you become more attuned to the sound of a component, you brain will be better at regonising its sonic 'signature', which will improve your ability to distinguish it from other components, and also learn to better compensate for any distortion.
This could be compared to listening to someone with an unfamiliar accent, when you first hear them, you may struggle to understand even simple phrases, but after some time you will adapt, and be able to understand not just the words, but also the emotion conveyed by the tone of voice.
Speakers and other mechanical objects are a competely different matter however. Whilst the 'brain compensation' also has a strong effect here, the physical properties will change over time. The most evident of this is the gradual softening of the rubber surrond on a speaker, which (to me) seems to improve bass resonse and clarity over time.
opaqueice
2006-10-31, 13:54
I am stunned to hear any experienced audiophile say they doubt burn in. Every time I buy a new component it is more than obvious. Perhaps the effects are a form of phase distortion some peoples' brains decode better than others.. The burn in process is not always the same, but I often find the first few seconds sound very like it will sound when burnt in (particularly cables), then it quickly deteriorates getting thin and opaque with sucked out bass. This improves slowly then switches over to lush and even gorgeous sounding, if rolled off, yet dynamically constrained. Then it opens up and gains dynamics and bass extension to settle into its burned in state. Sometimes there are wee detours along the way, but the process is often as I describe above. I think the main reason is dialectrics in cables and capacitors forming slowly, but that is at best just an informed guess. I have been able to compare burnt in versions with burning in versions of otherwise identical cables to confirm I am not mad on this - at least to my satisfaction - don't care about anyone else's. I am just stunned anyone with decent ears and a decent system has not heard it with new cables or equipment, when I have heard it so consistently. I am not doubting you have good systems and good ears, but I don't give any credence to the suggestion it is placebo. Perhaps it is that we are not all susceptible to the phase distortions created during burn in.
Look at it this way - we know a tremendous amount about cables. (FYI there is no such thing as a dialectric - if you mean dielectric, that is the opposite of a conductor, and if it formed in your interconnects or speaker cables it would have a rather drastic and unsubtle effect on the sound. Fortunately for electronics it does not.) We know very well how electrons propagate down cables, we have literally billions of electronic devices behaving in precisely predictable ways all the time everywhere in the world - it's hard to think of anything we understand BETTER. And in all of that, there is not a shred of scientific evidence or theory, at least to my knowledge (which is considerable - I'm a physicist), which indicates that any such phenomenon exists. I can say with total condidence that if cable burn-in happens it must be a miniscule effect.
On the other hand while we understand very little about how the human ear and brain interact, we know for a fact that the placebo effect and perception adaptation effects exist (and are extremely strong).
So which is more plausible - something going against decades of scientific knowledge, experience, experiments, expertise, and the laws of nature, or something in total accord with common sense and many many experiments in medicine and psychology and the study of human perception. You decide.
P Floding
2006-10-31, 14:32
Look at it this way - we know a tremendous amount about cables. (FYI there is no such thing as a dialectric - if you mean dielectric, that is the opposite of a conductor, and if it formed in your interconnects or speaker cables it would have a rather drastic and unsubtle effect on the sound. Fortunately for electronics it does not.) We know very well how electrons propagate down cables, we have literally billions of electronic devices behaving in precisely predictable ways all the time everywhere in the world - it's hard to think of anything we understand BETTER. And in all of that, there is not a shred of scientific evidence or theory, at least to my knowledge (which is considerable - I'm a physicist), which indicates that any such phenomenon exists. I can say with total condidence that if cable burn-in happens it must be a miniscule effect.
On the other hand while we understand very little about how the human ear and brain interact, we know for a fact that the placebo effect and perception adaptation effects exist (and are extremely strong).
So which is more plausible - something going against decades of scientific knowledge, experience, experiments, expertise, and the laws of nature, or something in total accord with common sense and many many experiments in medicine and psychology and the study of human perception. You decide.
What do you mean by dielectric "forming"?
It is there, all right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric
Phil Leigh
2006-10-31, 14:38
Look at it this way - we know a tremendous amount about cables. (FYI there is no such thing as a dialectric - if you mean dielectric, that is the opposite of a conductor, and if it formed in your interconnects or speaker cables it would have a rather drastic and unsubtle effect on the sound. Fortunately for electronics it does not.) We know very well how electrons propagate down cables, we have literally billions of electronic devices behaving in precisely predictable ways all the time everywhere in the world - it's hard to think of anything we understand BETTER. And in all of that, there is not a shred of scientific evidence or theory, at least to my knowledge (which is considerable - I'm a physicist), which indicates that any such phenomenon exists. I can say with total condidence that if cable burn-in happens it must be a miniscule effect.
On the other hand while we understand very little about how the human ear and brain interact, we know for a fact that the placebo effect and perception adaptation effects exist (and are extremely strong).
So which is more plausible - something going against decades of scientific knowledge, experience, experiments, expertise, and the laws of nature, or something in total accord with common sense and many many experiments in medicine and psychology and the study of human perception. You decide.
<donning asbestos suit now>
Opaqueice, FWIW I'm with you on this one! The brain definitely burns in...I doubt that copper does.
Speakers do for reasons stated above - anything mechanical needs to bed-in.
The burn-in used in scientific/engineering circles seems to relate mostly to caps "forming" (or components going in/out of spec due to thermal issues) which is well-understood scientific phenomena.
Some previous posters to this thread might do well to distinguish between "audiophiles" and people with a "good ear". Sadly there is no evidence for a correlation between the two...
<flame suit "reinforced to the nines">
Please don't try and tell me that I can't hear stuff and you can. Hearing (like seeing, smell and taste) is 99% in the brain. Touch is 100% in the brain...
We can try and rationalise it all we want but at the end of the day we are dealing with perception not logic/science.
<flame suit set to "armegeddon">
Thankfully for the industry, perception remains a delightfully elusive and subjective beast...
<flame suit notched up to 11>
:0)
CardinalFang
2006-10-31, 15:25
I am stunned to hear any experienced audiophile say they doubt burn in.
I'm not at all convinced about burn-in for cables, but I do accept that they will degrade/change over time as oxydation and corrosion set in. The surface changes may have some effect on the electrical properties of the cable, but the usual trick of pulling them out and putting them back in again usually gets you back to the start. If you think you cable has "burnt-in", does it go back to the start if you clean the contacts?
The regular cycle of heating up and cooling down of equipment must also affect other components over time, especially amplifiers, but cables are substantial metal objects that don't get hot, so I can't see the crystalline structure or eletric properties changing much at the low temperatures they operate at.
Burn-in is the brain acclimatising to the new sound in my view, but hey, it's just a viewpoint.
Phil Leigh
2006-10-31, 16:04
Burn-in is the brain acclimatising to the new sound in my view, but hey, it's just a viewpoint.
IMHO it's right on the money, Monsieur Fang. We'd just love to trash a couple of hundred years of well-researched science wouldn't we ;o)
Anyone who has actually done ANY research at all into how the human brain works would realise just what a fragile (complex) instrument it really is compared to a hunk of copper/silver/whatever...
SoftwireEngineer
2006-10-31, 16:19
Opaqueice, FWIW I'm with you on this one! The brain definitely burns in...I doubt that copper does.
A speaker cable or interconnect has a specific DC resistance, capacitance and inductance. I dont think DC resistance changes. Looks like the capacitance can change. I guess the inductance also has to change during that time. This I think, reflects in the sound. This all depends upon the quality of insulation and winding geometry of the cable. You can argue that the changes in capacitance are hardly noticeable. But first I want to establish that theoretical possibilities exist.
In my engg. school there was a high voltage laboratory where they test the insulators used in transmission towers for breakdown. What happens to an insulations' di-electric value when subjected to a low voltage for a period of time ? I dont think this has been studied systematically. Maybe the change is too small/negligible for most applications and was ignored. I was talking to a cable manufacturer's brother who joined the business after quitting software. He said, 'Oh man..this business is so weird, the interconnect will sound different when we change the number of twists'.
In this context, I doubt hearing is a 'digital' phenomenon of yes/no or 1/0. It is surely like vision, but I dont see there are any standardized tests for this.
opaqueice
2006-10-31, 16:54
What do you mean by dielectric "forming"?
It is there, all right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric
I don't understand your post. Are you asking me a question? I was quoting Jenks:
...
I think the main reason is dialectrics in cables and capacitors forming slowly, but that is at best just an informed guess.
...
and pointing out that no such process happens.
I was talking to a cable manufacturer's brother who joined the business after quitting software. He said, 'Oh man..this business is so weird, the interconnect will sound different when we change the number of twists'.
This is perfectly easy to understand. When you change the number of twists, you change the inductance, which will have some effect on the frequency response and hence what you hear (might be negligible, but if you add enough twists it will not be). Such a change is much, much larger than any change due to "burn-in" (if there is even any such effect at all). In other words every time you nudge your interconnects or speaker cables and change their geometry you are making a much bigger change than running current through them for hundreds of hours.
Actually some expensive cables test much worse than cheap ones (I can dig up the reference if necessary), as apparently some manufacturers don't understand even basic electronics.
As for oxidation on contacts, certainly this happens, but it's not what audiophiles mean when they talk about burn-in (as far as I can understand at least), and it's certainly not a change for the better.
Just be certain that you have a very clear understanding of what is meant by the term "Burn-in".
This is what happened to my new Stewart Firehawk screen back when I was a HT n00b and attempted my first screen burn-in.
Ooops!
Just be certain that you have a very clear understanding of what is meant by the term "Burn-in".
This is what happened to my new Stewart Firehawk screen back when I was a HT n00b and attempted my first screen burn-in.
Ooops!
Hehe...best burn in yet...who can top this? :)
peter
OK, here goes again. Brain burn in does not remotely explain it to me. If I put a new component in place and it sounds hideous and unmusical for a week or two, how come when I go to an audiophile mate's place and listen to his (burned in) system it sounds great? How come my brain doesn't need to burn in for his system but does with mine? And to all you placebo lovers, do I somehow expect that the shiny new $5000 preamp will sound like rubbish when I get it home? That certainly wasn't what I was thinking when I flashed out my credit card. And do I somehow expect my friend's system to sound good? I know you hate to think there isn't anything you don't know about wires and electrons, but that's a bit of a stretch don't you think?
CardinalFang
2006-11-01, 03:49
I know you hate to think there isn't anything you don't know about wires and electrons, but that's a bit of a stretch don't you think?
Hmmm... I'm not sure anyone claimed that, I think most of us (apologies if I get this wrong) can accept material changes due to corrosion, coiling or twists in cables, but burn-in suggests molecular changes, or a kind of "relaxing" that occurs post-manufacturing that doesn't seem to be backed up with empirial evidence.
On the other hand, the brain is subject to all kinds of suggestion and the fact the same component sounds different in two different systems and surroundings is more credibly explained by the fact that the circumstances are different than any effect due to burn-in.
Did you try putting your pre-amp in your friends system? That would at least indicate some effect due to some form of "settling-in" of components following a number of heating/cooling cycles.
I'll put my hand up and say I don't profess to understand how components age, but it's likely that it isn't for the better - my Copland amp needs new valves for example, and most equipment eventually dies of old age.
opaqueice
2006-11-01, 05:54
OK, here goes again. Brain burn in does not remotely explain it to me. If I put a new component in place and it sounds hideous and unmusical for a week or two, how come when I go to an audiophile mate's place and listen to his (burned in) system it sounds great? How come my brain doesn't need to burn in for his system but does with mine? And to all you placebo lovers, do I somehow expect that the shiny new $5000 preamp will sound like rubbish when I get it home? That certainly wasn't what I was thinking when I flashed out my credit card. And do I somehow expect my friend's system to sound good? I know you hate to think there isn't anything you don't know about wires and electrons, but that's a bit of a stretch don't you think?
Whether something sounds good could depend on what you ate for breakfast, whether the sun is shining, if the Republicans won the election, if there is some wax in your left ear.... it's not about "brain burn in" (although there are well-known adpatation effects in perception), it's simply that human beings are not very consistent, except in one aspect - we are very very very consistent and good at fooling ourselves. In particular we are extremely good at constructing explanations for our beliefs and perceptions even in situations where those explanations are demonstrably false (there's an enormous literature in cognitive psychology on this, which I can point you to if you're interested).
We also suffer from confirmation bias - once we have a theory in mind (such as "components burn in and improve over time") we remember events which support this theory, and forget those that do not, and so given random data our confidence in the theory grows.
I suspect that's what's going on here... but in any case the only way to use our ears reliably is with properly conducted blind tests, because that's the only way to filter out all of these other factors.
P Floding
2006-11-01, 06:59
Whether something sounds good could depend on what you ate for breakfast, whether the sun is shining, if the Republicans won the election, if there is some wax in your left ear.... it's not about "brain burn in" (although there are well-known adpatation effects in perception), it's simply that human beings are not very consistent, except in one aspect - we are very very very consistent and good at fooling ourselves. In particular we are extremely good at constructing explanations for our beliefs and perceptions even in situations where those explanations are demonstrably false (there's an enormous literature in cognitive psychology on this, which I can point you to if you're interested).
We also suffer from confirmation bias - once we have a theory in mind (such as "components burn in and improve over time") we remember events which support this theory, and forget those that do not, and so given random data our confidence in the theory grows.
I suspect that's what's going on here... but in any case the only way to use our ears reliably is with properly conducted blind tests, because that's the only way to filter out all of these other factors.
I believe Jenks is describing actual sound differences, but I'm not sure they have much to do with "burn in". I think most audiophiles are able to disregard a certain amount of bias due to mood etc.
opaqueice
2006-11-01, 07:44
I believe Jenks is describing actual sound differences, but I'm not sure they have much to do with "burn in". I think most audiophiles are able to disregard a certain amount of bias due to mood etc.
Suppose we put a bunch of audiophiles in a room and played two systems for them after explaining that one was much better than the other - because it had fancy cables, power conditioners, a nice amp, or whatever. We might make the systems look different externally, but secretly the two would be absolutely identical. To properly control this we would do the experiment with several different groups while randomizing across all variables (for example switch which system we explained was superior). We might also try the same experiment but with no initial claim about which was better. Afterwards, we ask the listeners which they preferred, and to explain why.
What do you think would happen?
Not only would almost everyone claim to hear a difference, they would come up with elaborate descriptions of precisely how it was better - clarity, PRaT, detail, bass extension, etc. If you don't believe me, believe the scientific literature or all of the many, many examples of this in the audiophile world (on this forum and other websites for example). Versions of this experiment have been done, many times, and the results are always the same.
The point? In this case it would be absolutely clear that the perceived differences were in the mind of the listener and not in any intrinsic characteristic of the sound. Given that people hear differences anyway, this demonstrates that we simply can't trust our perceptions of these things, period.
Suppose we put a bunch of audiophiles in a room and played two systems for them after explaining that one was much better than the other - because it had fancy cables, power conditioners, a nice amp, or whatever. We might make the systems look different externally, but secretly the two would be absolutely identical. To properly control this we would do the experiment with several different groups while randomizing across all variables (for example switch which system we explained was superior). We might also try the same experiment but with no initial claim about which was better. Afterwards, we ask the listeners which they preferred, and to explain why.
What do you think would happen?
Not only would almost everyone claim to hear a difference, they would come up with elaborate descriptions of precisely how it was better - clarity, PRaT, detail, bass extension, etc. If you don't believe me, believe the scientific literature or all of the many, many examples of this in the audiophile world (on this forum and other websites for example). Versions of this experiment have been done, many times, and the results are always the same.
The point? In this case it would be absolutely clear that the perceived differences were in the mind of the listener and not in any intrinsic characteristic of the sound. Given that people hear differences anyway, this demonstrates that we simply can't trust our perceptions of these things, period.
Should you qualify the above by saying "subtle differences , or somewhat subtle differences"?
Might the question be: At what level of difference does the ear/mind begin to fail us in distinguishing differences? An extreme example would be a transistor radio (remember those? :-) ) against a 100,000 system.
I think most people would do well on that test. :-)
It would be interesting to see a study on this.
P Floding
2006-11-01, 08:24
Suppose we put a bunch of audiophiles in a room and played two systems for them after explaining that one was much better than the other - because it had fancy cables, power conditioners, a nice amp, or whatever. We might make the systems look different externally, but secretly the two would be absolutely identical. To properly control this we would do the experiment with several different groups while randomizing across all variables (for example switch which system we explained was superior). We might also try the same experiment but with no initial claim about which was better. Afterwards, we ask the listeners which they preferred, and to explain why.
What do you think would happen?
Not only would almost everyone claim to hear a difference, they would come up with elaborate descriptions of precisely how it was better - clarity, PRaT, detail, bass extension, etc. If you don't believe me, believe the scientific literature or all of the many, many examples of this in the audiophile world (on this forum and other websites for example). Versions of this experiment have been done, many times, and the results are always the same.
The point? In this case it would be absolutely clear that the perceived differences were in the mind of the listener and not in any intrinsic characteristic of the sound. Given that people hear differences anyway, this demonstrates that we simply can't trust our perceptions of these things, period.
Sure, if there are no differences but you are looking for them and believeing there are such, you are likely too fool yourself.
I'm not talking about these type of situations that are bound to cloud most peoples judgement.
opaqueice
2006-11-01, 08:54
Should you qualify the above by saying "subtle differences , or somewhat subtle differences"?
Might the question be: At what level of difference does the ear/mind begin to fail us in distinguishing differences? An extreme example would be a transistor radio (remember those? :-) ) against a 100,000 system.
I think most people would do well on that test. :-)
It would be interesting to see a study on this.
Yeah, I avoided qualifying it for purely polemical reasons :-). Of course I agree that some differences really are obvious, like transistor radios or heavy distortion. But I also think it's not as easy as you might think to decide when a difference you percieve is obvious and when it isn't.
I wonder if there's a skill there - probably psychologists would call it metacognition - of learning to recognize when things really are there versus when they might be your brain fooling you. If you've ever messed around with, say, foobar with the ABXY plugin, at least if you're like me you'll find that many times you think there's a clear difference, even an obvious one, and then miserably fail to identify it on a blind test. After a few such failures you become considerably more skeptical about this.
So it would be quite interesting to see if people can learn to be skeptical to the right degree, so that they can determine when to trust their perceptions and when not. Actually I think all of us have a lot to learn from this - it's pretty humbling to discover how bad we are at judging reality, and knowing that such errors are common is crucial in just about every aspect of life.
I'm not talking about these type of situations that are bound to cloud most peoples judgement.
Which situations are you talking about then? Even if you're not specifically told to look for a difference, you will often percieve one that isn't there (I can provide examples if you want). Our brains are very good at discerning patterns. The point is we are so good at that we percieve differences even when they don't exist. So if someone percieves a difference when logic and science tell us it's extremely unlikely, the overwhelmingly preferred explanation is that it's in their head.
tyler_durden
2006-11-01, 09:18
OK, here goes again. Brain burn in does not remotely explain it to me. If I put a new component in place and it sounds hideous and unmusical for a week or two, how come when I go to an audiophile mate's place and listen to his (burned in) system it sounds great? How come my brain doesn't need to burn in for his system but does with mine? And to all you placebo lovers, do I somehow expect that the shiny new $5000 preamp will sound like rubbish when I get it home? That certainly wasn't what I was thinking when I flashed out my credit card. And do I somehow expect my friend's system to sound good? I know you hate to think there isn't anything you don't know about wires and electrons, but that's a bit of a stretch don't you think?
In all cases mentioned you are going into the situation with specific expectations. You know your friend has had his system for years, therefore it is already "burned-in" by your definition, therefore you expect it to sound good. Your system has some new $5k component (nevermind how many times it has been demoed at the store or been in someone else's system) that hasn't been "burned-in", so you expect it to sound like crap, then after days or weeks, your expectation is that it will sound better, so it magically does.
The stretch is in imagining that something in the equipment changes more than your expectations. Human minds are easy to fool- ever see slight-of-hand magic performed? If it is so easy for someone else to fool us, imagine how much easier it is to fool ourselves.
TD
tyler_durden
2006-11-01, 09:22
I wonder if there's a skill there - probably psychologists would call it metacognition - of learning to recognize when things really are there versus when they might be your brain fooling you. If you've ever messed around with, say, foobar with the ABXY plugin, at least if you're like me you'll find that many times you think there's a clear difference, even an obvious one, and then miserably fail to identify it on a blind test. After a few such failures you become considerably more skeptical about this.
So it would be quite interesting to see if people can learn to be skeptical to the right degree, so that they can determine when to trust their perceptions and when not. Actually I think all of us have a lot to learn from this - it's pretty humbling to discover how bad we are at judging reality, and knowing that such errors are common is crucial in just about every aspect of life.
It seems some people are inherently better at recognizing reality than others, and those who aren't, are not very good at learning to do so. See http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
TD
CardinalFang
2006-11-01, 09:31
Human minds are easy to fool- ever see slight-of-hand magic performed? If it is so easy for someone else to fool us, imagine how much easier it is to fool ourselves.
Just for my own interest - optical illusions are commonplace, is there such a thing as an audio illusion? EDIT yes there is! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_illusion
BTW, this is my faveourite optical illusion - square A *is* the same colour as square B. You need to download it into a paint package to verify the colour is the same no matter what your eyes are telling you!
opaqueice
2006-11-01, 09:42
BTW, this is my faveourite optical illusion - square A *is* the same colour as square B. You need to download it into a paint package to verify the colour is the same no matter what your eyes are telling you!
That's a very good one - thanks!
[QUOTE=CardinalFang;151522]Just for my own interest - optical illusions are commonplace, is there such a thing as an audio illusion? EDIT yes there is! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_illusion
fascinating link, thanks for that
CardinalFang
2006-11-01, 11:34
fascinating link, thanks for that
Following the links on Wikipedia led to this short piece from the German Magazine AUDIO that is very revealing:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/printthread.php?t=676404
Oh - here's the link to a page to help you determine what type of response to music you have:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t40690.html
SoftwireEngineer
2006-11-01, 11:54
Hi Guys,
I provided a technical explanation for the theoretical possibility for burn-in phenomenon to be a real one. But it looks like you all like to talk about the psychological aspect of things. One of the cable manufacturers whom I trust are Zu. These guys design their cables using software http://www.ansoft.com/products/em/max3d/index.cfm?&vflash=y
These guys also beleive in burn-in. I think it is mostly due to the newly manufactured insulation of the cables changing characteristics. There are some who think, even there are some changes in the conductor. So many cable manufacturers use cold-annealed or long-crystal copper or even cryogenically treated ones. Whatever it is, the burn-in seems real in my personal experience.
CardinalFang
2006-11-01, 12:08
These guys also beleive in burn-in. I think it is mostly due to the newly manufactured insulation of the cables changing characteristics.
Burn-in implies that after a period the changes stop and the product has reached a stationary optimal state, but insulation continues to degenerate over time, usually from exposure to UV light.
The only possible reason I can think of is that there is some form of chemical release of products used in manufacturing such as release agents or gases trapped in the material that slowly leak and are replaced by air, but that means to a large extent they are relying on serendipity to finish off their products. Also, if the cable sits in a store for a few months, is it burnt-in when you buy-it?
Following the links on Wikipedia led to this short piece from the German Magazine AUDIO that is very revealing:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/printthread.php?t=676404
Oh - here's the link to a page to help you determine what type of response to music you have:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t40690.html
Very interesting, thank you very much for that post. I'll run it by some of our acustics profs to see if they are familiar with these studies.
Peoples response to the online test are interesting. Seems their musical predilections are not always what they should be according to the German test.
Of course we all know the German's are pretty wierd :-) I mean, they never jaywalk ;-)
My favorite instruments are classical guitar(let's hope so), violin and cello.
But I really like all instruments and many genres of music ( even my kid's hip/hop, love idlewild and dangermouse's grey album) The composer's or interpreters musical intentions are now more important to me than the medium (instrument.)
Perhaps experience(either as listener and/or musician) can affect our organic predilections?
I guess this would be a nature versus nurture debate.
Can you imagine what this could do to the high end industry, get tested , go to designers of that kind of equipment, audio nirvana gauranteed :-)
Some great posts and links here, thanks to all.
I'm now looking forward to going to my audio dealer and being given an audio test before they'll recommend anything!
Ceejay
None of your explanations fit my experiences. I don't intend to document them here because I don't have to prove anything to you. What I am more interested in is your closed minds. Primarily this is a forum for people to express their experiences, not a forum for scientific proof, so won't bother with that. So far I haven't insulted your right to express your opinions - instead mine have been subjected to your condescending claims I must be deluded because you know more about physics than I do. Are you sure about that?
Are you also the sort of scientists that believe all competently designed cables and amps sound the same? That believe power cords cannot affect the sound of a system, that vibration does not affect the sound as it passes through electronics?
By the way, in answer to various questions - yes I have tried changing cable direction, sometimes accidentally, tried taking a buring in item to a friend's place, and if you knew my friend, you would realise expecting my friend's sytem to always be made up of old components would be an error.
As I say, you don't have to accept my reports of my experiences, and nor do I have to provide double blind test documentation to prove anything to you. You express your opinion - I express mine. That's as much as I am going to do here.
Phil Leigh
2006-11-01, 12:40
When I said brains burn in, what I meant was that over time you can become accustomed to almost anything....to the point where it ceases to be as obvious or intrusive as it was when you first noticed it. The human brain is fantastically good at adaptive filtering (especially on sight and sound). That's why many people people do not think they need glasses until they go for a eye test - the brain (working harder than normal) fills in a lot of missing information. Same goes for hearing loss. Likewise, annoying/distracting things can be selectively filtered out. However, it takes the brain a while of "pattern crunching" as it iterates towards the construction of really good filters. In that period things do not sound right. Eventually adequate filters are implemented and things are OK again...until something disturbs the accuracy of the filtering process (like a new component). Then the filters need time to adjust.
Please don't take this opinion to infer that I think everything sounds the same (it doesn't). It's simply that we are talking about a highly personal and subjective experience, so don't expect everyone to hear the same things or for everyone to agree on better/worse.
CardinalFang
2006-11-01, 12:45
I guess this would be a nature versus nurture debate.I would have to agree - I like a lot of what I grew up listening to - Motown, 60's pop and glam as well as a lot of acoustic and rock. In fact I have a bit of everything in my collection, but I do like things that my wife hates :-)
Can you imagine what this could do to the high end industry, get tested , go to designers of that kind of equipment, audio nirvana gauranteed :-)Well doesn't this explain what happens already - companies have a "house sound" that some people love and others hate. Why do some think valve amps with lower power at the low end are the bees knees and others love heavyweight transistor amps with thumping bass? Is it because the valve freaks can create the low end that isn't there in their brains?
The most interesting part to me is that part of the audio industry already understand this effect - small speaker manufacturers who tune speakers so that it's easier for the brain to create the missing low frequency fundemental.
P Floding
2006-11-01, 13:30
Following the links on Wikipedia led to this short piece from the German Magazine AUDIO that is very revealing:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/printthread.php?t=676404
Oh - here's the link to a page to help you determine what type of response to music you have:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t40690.html
Most interesting!
In my first test I got 8 "wrong" which means I lean towards being an overtone hearer. However I think environmental noise may interfer with the test as I managed to hear the same test case differently while my wife did the test (she too seemed to be an overtone hearer).
Enivironmental noise in this case was mainly my young son making lots of noise..
This could explain one or two things about why people hear things so differently. Especially since there seems to be a sliding scale between those that add a fundamental and those who don't.
Totally agree that people hear things differently. The brain is designed to decode sound to make sense of it - part of both our hunter and survivor skills - and a lot of that work is done in the time or phase domian. I do a lot of my experimentation (nearly 100 documented experiments on interconnect cable designs this year, and many not documented) with myself as the listener. But when I do the same experiments on other listeners it is clear that others are more or less sensitive to certain types phase distortions. This is one of the reasons why I think burn in is related to insulators and their different dielectric properties, and the fact/belief that their perfomance changes over a very long period when subjected to an electrical field. I recall my friend Ernie telling me of work he did in the military many years ago on how to quickly burn in (not a phrase he would choose, but in this context it is what he means) teflon insulation. Then again the military could have been suffering from placebo effect or faulty intelligence at the time - it wouldn't be a first.
Phil Leigh
2006-11-01, 15:04
Well yes that's cool...
dielectrics do degrade over time...through oxidation etc
adamslim
2006-11-01, 15:51
Following the links on Wikipedia led to this short piece from the German Magazine AUDIO that is very revealing:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/printthread.php?t=676404
Oh - here's the link to a page to help you determine what type of response to music you have:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t40690.html
Hey cool links. I got 11/12 'wrong', so am an overtone hearer. Fits with my preferred instrument choice of violin and voice. Be interesting to see how 'hearing' varies with equipment choice too.
so what does it mean when you get 6 of 12 like I just did?
"Well yes that's cool...
dielectrics do degrade over time...through oxidation etc"
Is that intended to be a put down or did you just misread my post? The military wanted to degrade the dielectric before use?
Since you are so dogmatic about it Phil, how many controlled experiments on burn in have you performed? I am interested in others observations - not the closed minded application or your models to my reality. Dismissing my observations with your derisive closed mind is not appreciated.
Perhaps you come here to debate with people to continually reinforce your comfort that you already know everything. I don't. I come here to share experiences and views.
I don't know, maybe burn in is subjective, the TP sounds better to me today now that I'm no longer vomiting from the stomach flu.
Could this lead to a new kind of tweak? :-)
should I start a new thread?
Like it!! Did you need to vomit on the Transporter to get it to sound better? Sounds more like a soak test than burn in, but certainly novel and something I have not tried.
There will be a double blind test of the stomach flu/TP sound on the next SouthPark episode
Eric Seaberg
2006-11-01, 22:29
Sorry I haven't read the entire thread, but I do have a thought or two about this.
I purchased a phono pre-amp from a manufacturer in the UK that recommends BURNING IN for 24+ hours before using, and not just having it on, but actually playing audio through it. They even recommended a CD that is recorded with the RIAA curve to feed the preamp from a CD player. The level on the CD is compensated for the lower input requirement of the preamp so it won't kill it.
I didn't do a before/after listening test, but all of the reviews I read about the preamp before purchase mentioned this and said it really did make a difference in the sound.
I've been in the recording biz for over 35-years and have done many a session where we could hear a difference in the console when it had only been on for a few hours as opposed to several days.
Phil Leigh
2006-11-01, 23:21
"Well yes that's cool...
dielectrics do degrade over time...through oxidation etc"
Is that intended to be a put down or did you just misread my post? The military wanted to degrade the dielectric before use?
Since you are so dogmatic about it Phil, how many controlled experiments on burn in have you performed? I am interested in others observations - not the closed minded application or your models to my reality. Dismissing my observations with your derisive closed mind is not appreciated.
Perhaps you come here to debate with people to continually reinforce your comfort that you already know everything. I don't. I come here to share experiences and views.
I was merely observing that dielectrics degrade over time...so if they do indeed burn-in...they carry on changing over time...? I have some very old equipment (in the loft) where the cabling and some internal components appear to have "degenerated" physically through age (they haven't been plugged in)
I bought some Kimber 8TC cables that had been used for a year or so (so presumably burnt-in) and perceived a change in the sound over a couple of weeks. This indicates to me that either:
1) they weren't burnt in
2) I was hearing something else
?
I bought some Kimber 8TC cables that had been used for a year or so (so presumably burnt-in) and perceived a change in the sound over a couple of weeks. This indicates to me that either:
1) they weren't burnt in
2) I was hearing something else
?
Maybe 2) ? That would suggest that it is your brain adjusting. With the exception of speakers, I haven't given burn-in a lot of thought.
You won't believe this one either, but if you disturb any burned in cable it will go through a very quick version of burn in. The effect is small but repeatable in tests I have done - removing the cable, coiling it up, uncoiling it and plugging it back in. I don't profess to understand it, but the listener subject, not knowing in which cycle it was done could often identify some change in the sound - mainly in the sound becoming a bit pinched and less spacious (the opposite of more open). I don't expect people to believe it because it is at first unbelievable, but I know a number of no-bullshit experienced audiophiles who find this uncontroversial. The effect in these circumstances is small. But removing a cable for a couple of weeks, replacing it with an identical cable for those two weeks, and then reinserting the original cable results in a burn in period of about two days - compared with a new cable wich can take more like two weeks (playing music for say 6 hours a day). I find it hard to understand how it can be the conductors and have played around with naked conductors and it does seem burn in is either not there or less pronounced, but haven't done enough experiments to verify that. I guess I didn't see how that knowledge would be useful.
opaqueice
2006-11-02, 04:25
Jenks,
it sounds like you spend quite a lot of time doing experiments with cables. You may not care about this, but no one (outside the audiophile world at least) will take your results seriously unless they are properly controlled - meaning blind and randomized. So it might be worth trying.
I'm not saying you have to do this, or even that you should - you can do anything you want, of course - but at least for anyone scientifically minded the results mean literally nothing unless the experiments are properly controlled. Imagine you had a defective equalizer with settings that change over time, either randomly or (even worse) in response to the type of cables you attach. Suppose you hooked this thing up to your system and then proceeded swapping cables and trying to identify differences. It would be impossible - you couldn't distinguish the effect of the cables from the effect of the equalizer. That's a more or less good model for your (or anyone's) brain.
Deaf Cat
2006-11-02, 04:51
Jenks - cool stuff :)
I took the advice of 'run it for a couple of hours before your listen properly to it' with a pinch of salt.
The advice was form a dealer from whom I was borrowing cables. The demo cables were all burnt in, but a couple of hours were needed for it to settle into the new system it was in.....???
I pluged it in and listened to the cable for 20mins or so, tut tut, went out for the morning 6 hrs later Oooo it sounds much better - now I do as I'm told :)
I bought a new one, and was told errm can't quite remember, but it was like 4-500hrs burn in (alot!!) to get the full result - He was right again :O
This quick burn in after the cable has been properly burnt in - (I've left my cable alone since I pluged it in)
Is it bending the cable that unbalances the cable(or insulation) and causes the need for the quick burn in to occur again?
Or
Is it that it is pluged into something else (keeping the cable in the same shape it has always been in)?
Have not experimented my self just wondered if Jenks may know ?
Cool, this is the first thread I have come across talking about the 'quick burn' :D
Good Man Jenks!
Mark Lanctot
2006-11-02, 09:21
I am hesitant to admit this because I don't agree with the principle of burn-in, but I have to say after approximately 20+ hours of Transporter listening it really does sound better.
What happened I don't know - whether my brain adjusted to it and opened up to its nuances or whether some electronic component(s) settled in I can't say.
It just seems more natural and clearer. I won't get into "airiness" or other vaguely-defined audiophile terms, but there's more of everything and it's even more enjoyable to listen to. As many have commented, it's hard to stop listening. I continually keep saying to myself "one more track".
This is not to say it was at all bad out of the box, but it seems to be even better now.
Perhaps it was the power of suggestion of this thread? :-)
So, how would we do a controlled experiment on burn-in?
(1) take two new Transporters. Plug one of them in and run it non-stop for a week. Don't listen to it! (eg turn the speakers off). Then do a blind switch test between the two and see if you can spot a difference (but be quick! you don't want the second one to burn in!)
(2) Take a large sample of new Transporter owners. All listen to their Transporters for a day. Then half ("A" group) get to listen for another week, while the other half ("B") have to let the device play without being able to listen to it. Then they all get to listen for another day, and report on whether it sounds any better or not.
Option (1) is probably the more scientific, but option (2) would be more fun - especially watching the B group slowly go mad as they can see but not hear their new toy...
Ceejay
So, how would we do a controlled experiment on burn-in?
(1) take two new Transporters. Plug one of them in and run it non-stop for a week. Don't listen to it! (eg turn the speakers off). Then do a blind switch test between the two and see if you can spot a difference (but be quick! you don't want the second one to burn in!)
(2) Take a large sample of new Transporter owners. All listen to their Transporters for a day. Then half ("A" group) get to listen for another week, while the other half ("B") have to let the device play without being able to listen to it. Then they all get to listen for another day, and report on whether it sounds any better or not.
Option (1) is probably the more scientific, but option (2) would be more fun - especially watching the B group slowly go mad as they can see but not hear their new toy...
Ceejay
FYI - as a dealer, I get to hear these kinds of "experiments" all the time with other gear. Most recently, I did it with a pair of speakers, where a customer took my demo pair for a week-long in-home trial. When he bought a new pair, he noted that they did not sound the same as my demo pair. After 3 weeks, just for kicks, I brought the demo pair back to his home, and the demo pair and his newly-burned-in pair sounded much more alike...
CardinalFang
2006-11-02, 10:31
So, how would we do a controlled experiment on burn-in?
They both need to be at the same operating temperature as well as that will affect the electronics. My guessis that you need to have a new one and one a month old and then turn them both on for an hour or so and then do the listening comparison - double blind.
CardinalFang
2006-11-02, 10:37
You won't believe this one either, but if you disturb any burned in cable it will go through a very quick version of burn in. The effect is small but repeatable in tests I have done - removing the cable, coiling it up, uncoiling it and plugging it back in.
You are scraping the thin layer of corrosion off the plugs when you do that, so I would expect a small effect. Coiling and uncoiling will also damage the structure of the cable and possibly the adhesion of the insulator to the cable as well. Keep doing it over a small area and you get work hardening and that leads to breaks, like when you bend a spoon backwards and forwards many times (I used to write software for the detection of cracks due to this effect). I'm sure there are even more reasons why physical manipulation of a cable can alter it.
CardinalFang
2006-11-02, 10:39
FYI - as a dealer, I get to hear these kinds of "experiments" all the time with other gear. Most recently, I did it with a pair of speakers, where a customer took my demo pair for a week-long in-home trial. When he bought a new pair, he noted that they did not sound the same as my demo pair. After 3 weeks, just for kicks, I brought the demo pair back to his home, and the demo pair and his newly-burned-in pair sounded much more alike...
That makes sense with speakers as they do undergo physical forces when playing music, so the speaker units themselves would alter and settle into their housings and other aspects of the structure may relax/move after manufacture.
SoftwireEngineer
2006-11-02, 11:35
You are scraping the thin layer of corrosion off the plugs when you do that, so I would expect a small effect. Coiling and uncoiling will also damage the structure of the cable and possibly the adhesion of the insulator to the cable as well. Keep doing it over a small area and you get work hardening and that leads to breaks, like when you bend a spoon backwards and forwards many times (I used to write software for the detection of cracks due to this effect). I'm sure there are even more reasons why physical manipulation of a cable can alter it.
Very good explanation. I also have read that the crystal structure of the conductor affects the sound. Quite possibly, bending etc changes this. This is one of the reasons some cables are made with Single crystal/long crystal copper (ohno continuous cast copper - OCCC) eg. Audioquest, Harmonic Tech, Acoustic Zen etc. Some manufacturers use soft-annealed, cryogenically treated ones. I do not buy cables or pay premium for these aspects of a cable. I usually go by the geometry, overall capacitance/inductace.
BTW, I have also heard about some treatment for teflon insulation to 'stabilize' it that was used by the US army, as Jenks mentions.
Also I feel the burn-in phenomenon is being misused/abused by some manufacturers, to the point, that some customers might just get accustomed to the sound, rather than the cable actually changing.
opaqueice
2006-11-02, 14:58
Very good explanation. I also have read that the crystal structure of the conductor affects the sound. Quite possibly, bending etc changes this. This is one of the reasons some cables are made with Single crystal/long crystal copper (ohno continuous cast copper - OCCC) eg. Audioquest, Harmonic Tech, Acoustic Zen etc. Some manufacturers use soft-annealed, cryogenically treated ones. I do not buy cables or pay premium for these aspects of a cable. I usually go by the geometry, overall capacitance/inductace.
BTW, I have also heard about some treatment for teflon insulation to 'stabilize' it that was used by the US army, as Jenks mentions.
Also I feel the burn-in phenomenon is being misused/abused by some manufacturers, to the point, that some customers might just get accustomed to the sound, rather than the cable actually changing.
While such tiny molecular changes are not impossible, I repeat - coiling the wire a few times will have an enourmously larger effect, because it will increase the inductance by a macroscopic amount. So why are people concerned about burn-in, $1000 cables, etc., and not about precisely how the cables are routed and what exactly is their shape and whether the other cables or even the wiring in the walls is causing some mutual inductance, etc. etc. etc.
Teflon is well-known as a nearly perfect dielectric, so it's probably a pretty good choice to insulate high-current cables. It's also well known that dielectrics change if you force current through them (I think it's called dielectric breakdown - think of lightning or an electric arc forcing itself through air, which is normally a pretty good insulator). However that has nothing to do with cable burn-in. A rough analogy - forcing water through a dense material will make holes and drastically change the material, but running water through a pipe will not change the pipe significantly.
I do understand the difference between plugging/unplugging to remake connections and do it every Saturday morning - I am talking about a whole other thing, and no I am not kinking the cable to the extent that anything is damaged.
Yes I do blind controlled tests. But not every time. It would be too slow to always rely on controlled blind tests, so what I do is trust my ears to do a set of rapid experiments to develop insights about what might work. Then when I have a theory I construct controlled blind tests which I apply to other listeners who don't have any idea what is being tested or how they are tested, and then I have the tests applied to me. I usually pick up more than the other participants because I am already listening for the type of difference I expect, but the results correlate a lot of the time - remember, I know what is being tested and how, and have listening experience of the impacts but other wise the tests are blind.
I find I can make a lot of useful progress without the blind tests, and simply use the blind tests to ensure I haven't gone down a blind alley. This has also trained me to listen more honestly in the casual tests as I don't enjoy being proven wrong in the blind tests.
Hey, I know you guys want proof, but this is just a forum to put ideas into - I have no desire to publish my findings. Yes I have done a lot on testing interconnects but once I have built the cables I want for myself I will stop. I doubt I will have any interest in making any for anyone else - I just find the figuring out how things work to be fun. Speaker cabling comes next.
So why are people concerned about burn-in, $1000 cables, etc., and not about precisely how the cables are routed and what exactly is their shape and whether the other cables or even the wiring in the walls is causing some mutual inductance, etc. etc. etc.
I know more than a few people who are worried about all of these things (you've seen those cable lifter products, no?). I even know a guy who makes sure that every wire that crosses another from his break-box to his system crosses each other at a 90 degree angle. But even for those who aren't, sometimes they are restricted by things like WAF et al. I don't think being concerned with burn-in is mutually exclusive from being concerned about other things...
If you are wanting to test different cable designs, or just borrowing a component from a shop overnight, then burn in is somewhat vital to understand. There is little point in critical listening and evaluation of something that is not burned in or comparing it with something that is burned in. I have found that out the hard way and burn in surfaced as an issue in that context. Given those findings, doing a controlled test on burn in became superfluous, but I did a couple just to be sure soemthing else wasn't happening.
I don't accept Teflon is a near perfect insulator. My empirical studies led me to believe it adds a perceived brightness compared with better alternatives. One of those better alternatives is free air - ie use bare wire, but you get issues like vibration differences coming into it so the experiments have to triangulate from a variety of observations - eg using paper tape to damp the vibrations or using cotton sleeves - both of which can be arranged to reduce vibration and achieve better dielectric performance than teflon. This exposes the teflon as adding brightness - whether as a dialectric or due to poor vibration control is less obvious.
Just a note on the coiling - my references to it were about coiling the cable to the same extent as the manufacturer did when it was packaged. I don't doubt that coiling the cable could change something physically about the cable. But does that explain to you why the cable then goes through a shortened burn in cycle. You might have to pull out that Swiss Army knife of scientific debate known as 'placebo' again right?
opaqueice
2006-11-02, 18:14
I don't accept Teflon is a near perfect insulator. My empirical studies led me to believe it adds a perceived brightness compared with better alternatives. One of those better alternatives is free air - ie use bare wire, but you get issues like vibration differences coming into it so the experiments have to triangulate from a variety of observations - eg using paper tape to damp the vibrations or using cotton sleeves - both of which can be arranged to reduce vibration and achieve better dielectric performance than teflon. This exposes the teflon as adding brightness - whether as a dialectric or due to poor vibration control is less obvious.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Teflon is a very good insulator - see here for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_insulation. However for insulating interconects it's probably overkill since the currents involved are so low. In any case, I don't see why how good an insulator it is should have any effect at all on interconnects - what you need is shielding, not insulation. You don't want stray EMI to cause interference in the interconnects, so for that you want to wrap a conductor around the cable (with a layer of insulation in between, obviously). See here for example:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shielded_cable Bare wire would be the worst possible case.
I have no idea what you mean about vibration.
Just a note on the coiling - my references to it were about coiling the cable to the same extent as the manufacturer did when it was packaged. I don't doubt that coiling the cable could change something physically about the cable. But does that explain to you why the cable then goes through a shortened burn in cycle. You might have to pull out that Swiss Army knife of scientific debate known as 'placebo' again right?
Again, I think we're speaking different languages here. I repeat - effects due to stressing the wire and changing something physical about it, or some tiny microscopic change in the metal from running current through it, will be totally negligible compared to how it is arranged when you use it. Look at an inductor - see how it's a coil of wire? Any coil of wire has some inductance, so if for example your speaker cable is coiled rather than straight, you will change the frequency response of your system (high frequencies will be a little bit damped). How significant that is is debatable -I suspect it's not very important, unless you have ridiculously long cables - but it's clearly far more important than any of the effects you seem to have in mind. It's actually measurable using a meter, for example, whereas I very much doubt any of these other putative effects are.
I am clearly not explaining myself well.
Different insulators have dielectric effects which smear and delay the transmission of a complex music signal such that a phase distortion is caused - different frequencies are not treated equally. This is not controversial to those working in this field, and I am painfully aware how controversial it is to some people who think they know everything, because they work in some field of electronics. The insulator sits in the most powerful part of the external field created when a music signal passes along the conductor, and unless it acted like a vacuum, it creates a kind of filter. This adds to the already deleterious effect called skin effect with similar impacts on the sound.
Teflon was claimed to be near perfect in an earlier post, and I was saying that empirical tests I have completed convinced me that it deviated from perfect, creating a distortion that I and others perceived to be added brightness. You don't have to be convinced, I am just saying what I think, and reporting what I perceived - this is just a chat forum, not an application for a Nobel Prize.
Vibration of a cable or a component generates small signals that mix with the sound. Again not controversial, except to those not in the industry. One of the difficulties in observing the differences in sound from using alternative insulation materials is that dielectric effects are not the only impacts - the damping of vibrations will change things too.
Not sure where we are going with this. Some say burn in doesn't exist, I and a few others say our experiences don't fit with your dismissals of being placebo. We can't go much further than that here.
By the way I do acknowledge the brain burning into a set of phase or tonal distortions is real. I have experimented with that idea a bit too, but it doesn't occur in a way that is at all similar to my experiences with burn in, and they are much less severe than burn in, in my experience.
This has been an interesting thread I must say! The more I was reading the
for and against arguments, the more I was thinking this was a thread about
religion. I'm almost curious how it translates to what the people believe
:-) I'd say:
- atheists don't believe in burn-in - no prove!
- agnostics leave it up to you - maybe you hear it, good for you, but I
don't!
- believers of course believe in burn-in :-)
Hmmm...
jan ;-)
This has been an interesting thread I must say! The more I was reading the
for and against arguments, the more I was thinking this was a thread about
religion. I'm almost curious how it translates to what the people believe
:-) I'd say:
- atheists don't believe in burn-in - no prove!
- agnostics leave it up to you - maybe you hear it, good for you, but I
don't!
- believers of course believe in burn-in :-)
Hmmm...
jan ;-)
Maybe the answer lies in something I saw written on a wall in a bathroom:
to be is to do , Descarte
to do is to be, Neitche
do be do be do Sinatra
opaqueice
2006-11-02, 19:37
Different insulators have dielectric effects which smear and delay the transmission of a complex music signal such that a phase distortion is caused - different frequencies are not treated equally. This is not controversial to those working in this field, and I am painfully aware how controversial it is to some people who think they know everything, because they work in some field of electronics. The insulator sits in the most powerful part of the external field created when a music signal passes along the conductor, and unless it acted like a vacuum, it creates a kind of filter. This adds to the already deleterious effect called skin effect with similar impacts on the sound.
Well, if you're talking about skin effects, I refer you to this:
...to an acoustic engineer the delays seem very small. Since sound propagates at a velocity of around 330 m/sec it will only travel around 16 microns in 50 nanoseconds. In effect, therefore, the above differential group delay is equivalent to a sound source that seems 16 microns nearer at high audible frequencies than at low audible frequencies. from http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/skineffect/page2.html
Skin effect delays are nanoseconds, during which time sound travels microns - much smaller than the size of someone's vocal cords, for instance, or speaker cones, and therefore totally irrelevant.
Contrast that to a coil of speaker wire, say of radius around a foot. Using some reasonable values for resistance etc., a quick computation says that would induce a delay of close to maximal (90 degrees) between low audio frequencies and high - that is, a delay of order a milisecond at a kHz. So the effect of one loop of wire is roughly 1,000,000 times larger than the skin effect.
Vibration of a cable or a component generates small signals that mix with the sound. Again not controversial, except to those not in the industry. One of the difficulties in observing the differences in sound from using alternative insulation materials is that dielectric effects are not the only impacts - the damping of vibrations will change things too.
I have no idea what you're talking about here, so I don't have anything useful to say.
EDIT - I must confess to being an atheist, Jan :-). So you're one for one so far...
Maybe the answer lies in something I saw written on a wall in a bathroom:
to be is to do , Descarte
to do is to be, Neitche
do be do be do Sinatra
Doh! Homer Simpson
I am not hoping for or expecting anyone to believe in burn in - the issue is not a religious one. But I hope there is enough here to caution about making hasty judgements about the sound of any component - regardless of what it is that burns in. That's all...
CardinalFang
2006-11-03, 07:52
Skin effect delays are nanoseconds, during which time sound travels microns - much smaller than the size of someone's vocal cords, for instance, or speaker cones, and therefore totally irrelevant.
Interestingly enough, the skin effect could be more important if the surface of the cable is damaged through the manufacturing process or from handling. Tiny cracks in the surface cause the signal to have to travel further - up and down the sides of the crack. A company that I used to work for had a good business detecting those cracks by inducing AC signals at fixed frequencies to travel along the surface of the material, and then measuring the varying voltage drop as probes went along the surface - it was quite significant even on a microscopic crack. No sign of burn-in though :-)
CardinalFang
2006-11-03, 07:58
I am not hoping for or expecting anyone to believe in burn in - the issue is not a religious one. But I hope there is enough here to caution about making hasty judgements about the sound of any component - regardless of what it is that burns in. That's all...
I don't think the problem is that burn-in per se is hard to believe for many components, it's just that sometimes wild explanations are plucked out of the air by some audiophiles and that detracts from the plausability. Things do settle in over time in many situations, especially when there are mechanical components, but cables don;t move as a rule unless you have very big fields being generated.
In point of fact, I have seen, or more correctly heard, cables moving. In my youth I worked for an industrial automation company and one of the products was control systems for huge motors and other electrical systems that required big, big currents. If they went unstable (hysteresis in the control loops, hunting, bad programming etc.) then sudden peaks in current could be generated and it was enough to make the cables bang against the metal trunking...
opaqueice
2006-11-03, 09:49
Interestingly enough, the skin effect could be more important if the surface of the cable is damaged through the manufacturing process or from handling. Tiny cracks in the surface cause the signal to have to travel further - up and down the sides of the crack. A company that I used to work for had a good business detecting those cracks by inducing AC signals at fixed frequencies to travel along the surface of the material, and then measuring the varying voltage drop as probes went along the surface - it was quite significant even on a microscopic crack. No sign of burn-in though :-)
What was the frequency of the signals? Skin effects scale like the root of the frequency, so for RF stuff it matters much more.
In point of fact, I have seen, or more correctly heard, cables moving. In my youth I worked for an industrial automation company and one of the products was control systems for huge motors and other electrical systems that required big, big currents. If they went unstable (hysteresis in the control loops, hunting, bad programming etc.) then sudden peaks in current could be generated and it was enough to make the cables bang against the metal trunking...
There's a lab in France where they use coils (inductors, if you want) to generate huge magnetic fields. Problem is, they tend to explode if you crank up the current too much. So they make the coils very very strong, and then settle on a current small enough so that it doesn't blow up the coil when they turn it on. Then they check for burn-in - since the coils are so stressed, the geometry can change each time you fire them up, and they want to make sure things are consistent from shot to shot. In fact they are pretty consistent - so long as the current is small enough that the thing doesn't explode then evidently it remains pretty stable across many shots. In any case, clearly there will be some dergradation over time, so I suppose that's an example of bad burn-in? The energy generated in the field is around a MJ, and lasts a few seconds.
So next time you crank up your 100,000 watt/channel amplifier, be careful of burn in.
CardinalFang
2006-11-04, 06:31
What was the frequency of the signals? Skin effects scale like the root of the frequency, so for RF stuff it matters much more.
I can't remember exactly, but is was in the kHZ, perhaps 2-10kHz - it was nearly 15 years ago! The company is still around and the technique description is here:
http://www.tscinspectionsystems.co.uk/indexACFM.htm
It's for offshore inspection, so has been tuned for larger cracks under layers of rust and gunge, not for small cracks in highly finished surfaces.
This has ben one of the most educational threads for me,thanks all.
ending week 2 with my TP I am still "hearing" it improve, rather than the newness wearing off I keep wanting to listen more and I hear more nuances. I am hearing info I did not hear the 1st week on the same recording ( i assume this is my brain getting better at decoding what I hear)
Whether or not this change is in my brain or the TP I think this indicates the TP is one very good product.
Often , with" brain burn in"( Henceforth to be known as BBI (trademark # 7588548546645 you must pay royalties :-) )
But seriously, with BBI I usually get tired of a component (or guitar) and find myself wanting something new. This often happens in the 1st week or so.
So I am thinking at this point the TP is a keeper.
It makes sense to me that much of the changes we hear could be the result of the brain getting used to the gear it hears and the brain getting better at decoding what it hears as it familiarizes itself with the gear.
Could this be a reason why short term blind tests seem so inconclusive? Could this point to a flaw in short term testing?
Perhaps people need to spend a much longer time with each component before they can "decode the difference" or decode the sonic attributes of a particular component.
Maybe someone should do a study on the changes that occur in a listeners ability to hear information from a particular component over a longer period of time.
This info might influence the way we do blind tests.
Or not, I am certainly no scientist and maybe the above speculation is hopelessly naive so please illuminate me :-)
chinablues
2006-11-22, 00:45
Burn-in and 'break-in' are two entirely separate concepts with respect to electronic systems. One has an engineering or scientific basis while the other would appear to me to be marketing hype. As mentioned in posts above, burn-in is an established procedure for almost any system, be it mechanical, electronic (digital or analog) etc. Burn-in is to find infant mortality issues. Break-in on the other hand, implies an improving of the system over time. I can readily understand break-in as it applies to mechanical systems for in those systems there are physical mechanisms (friction, stress, stiffness, creep etc) that change over time. These changes could perfectly well result in an improvement of sound, much as a new shoe fits the foot after a month of wear. There are no such mechanisms in electronic systems that would explain an 'improving' of a system over time. On the contrary there are a number of physical mechanisms that would contribute to a deteriation in performance. (vibration, moisture ingress, power supply spikes, AC voltage 50/60Hz carry through to DC power buses, electromagnetic radiation, lightning electromagnetic pulse, static discharges, photon impingement on P-N junctions from outer space etc). Of course, deterioration of performance could manifest itself as an audible 'difference', but it is surely not a feature that was intended by the system designers.
I am an instrumentation & control systems engineer (EE) in the petrochemical business. We have many electronic systems still working today that were installed in the 60's & 70's when electronics replaced pneumatic instrumentation. Power supply electrolytic capacitors have a life of about 10-15 years, but for the base electronics we do not see wear out problems even after 30 years or so. Systems tend to get replaced because of lack of vendor support, not really inherent reliability concerns (a generalisation of course). Given that electronics does not appear to 'wear out',(= does not change in performance over time), what mechanism exists to create a possible 'break-in' (= sound improvement over time) phenomenon? Beats me.
Digital systems represent another problem area since they often have software (or firmware) coding embedded within the 'electronics'. There are however no 'wear-out' issues with software. Of course that does not mean there are no 'bugs' (as we all know). Bugs exist for the lifetime of the product, or until they are removed by a program update, but they only manifest themselves when the correct set of circumstances exist to cause the bug to 'pop up'. Sometimes acceptable & sometimes not. The presence of 'bugs' in software and the reduction in number of such bugs as the product improves, has been likened to 'burn-in' of mechanical systems, even although the phenomena is recognised to be inherently 'different'. But in terms of 'break-in' of software affecting audio quality, I do not believe this is a meaningful physical phenomenon. (of course, always excepting the digital nature of software in that it could render the sound to be a 1 or a 0 ie, on or off).
All imho of course.
dan
adamslim
2006-11-22, 02:14
photon impingement on P-N junctions from outer space
You mean space aliens are making my hi-fi sound worse? Bummer!
It makes sense to me that much of the changes we hear could be the result of the brain getting used to the gear it hears and the brain getting better at decoding what it hears as it familiarizes itself with the gear.
Could this be a reason why short term blind tests seem so inconclusive? Could this point to a flaw in short term testing?
Perhaps people need to spend a much longer time with each component before they can "decode the difference" or decode the sonic attributes of a particular component.
Maybe someone should do a study on the changes that occur in a listeners ability to hear information from a particular component over a longer period of time.
This info might influence the way we do blind tests.
I think you might be on to something here. It's been established that the ability to here the artifacts of lossy encoding (eg. MP3) can be learned through training. Someone who can't hear the artifacts of, say, a 256kbs MP3 can learn to recognise them, after which they find it fairly easy.
I wonder if the act of prolonged listening to a piece of HiFi equipment might result in "unconcious learning" of its subtle characteristics? The test of this would be to take two items which cannot be distinguished in an ABX (a couple of amplifiers or DACs, perhaps). Then live with them both for a few weeks, and repeat the ABX to see if they can now be reliably distinguished.
chinablues
2006-11-22, 04:07
You mean space aliens are making my hi-fi sound worse? Bummer!
Too many years ago, an EE Professor at Strathclyde Univ where I was studying Electrical Engineering, used to wire himself up to some sort of electronic counter & count the number of photons that would hit him as he drank his cuppa. Some reckoned he marked the exam papers on this basis. At least it gives you something to worry about. I believe there is some basis of photons punching holes in a transistors P-N juncton. Whether photons hitting power cords makes much of a difference, I cannot tell though.... Actually its a bit like Scotch hitting the brain cells. I always reckon it's a blessing I started out with so many...
Too many years ago, an EE Professor at Strathclyde Univ where I was studying Electrical Engineering, used to wire himself up to some sort of electronic counter & count the number of photons that would hit him as he drank his cuppa.
You sure this was photons? Wouldn't there be trillions of them (unless he drank his cuppa in a darkroom)? If you're talking about particles from outer space (cosmic rays), it'd be things like muons that you'd want to count.
Some reckoned he marked the exam papers on this basis.
A physics tutor at London Uni, where I was studying Astrophysics, claimed that he marked exam papers by throwing them down the stairs and seeing where they landed. (I failed his course, by the way, and am ashamed to admit that I can't blame it on my answer paper's aerodynamics).
chinablues
2006-11-22, 05:51
You sure this was photons? Wouldn't there be trillions of them (unless he drank his cuppa in a darkroom)? If you're talking about particles from outer space (cosmic rays), it'd be things like muons that you'd want to count.
Who knows, a lot of water under the bridge (& in the scotch) since then (1970)
richidoo
2006-11-22, 07:16
Break in time is the time that it takes for your brain to replace the old sound with the new sound as its standard. If you switched back to your old setup after breaking in the new, you would have to adjust to that all over again, but you would not think of it as break in. Switching back to the ("already broken in") new stuff again would be an eye opener, because you already know its broken in, but the sound would keep improving each day as your mind readjusts to the new environment, just as it did the first time!
The adjustment process is called homeostasis and it applies to every function of body and mind, allowing us to adapt to any environment - slowly.
Warm up does effect the sound, a lot more with tube electronics which rely on high heat to do their job. As a tube heats up, it has to fill all heat sinks nearby before it reaches its stable condition, the state in which the unit was tuned to sound best. Since tube electronics usually have big step up transformers and steel boxes which suck up lots of heat until they reach stable temp.
Rich
Happy Birdday in advance!
opaqueice
2006-11-22, 07:58
I am an instrumentation & control systems engineer (EE) in the petrochemical business. We have many electronic systems still working today that were installed in the 60's & 70's when electronics replaced pneumatic instrumentation. Power supply electrolytic capacitors have a life of about 10-15 years, but for the base electronics we do not see wear out problems even after 30 years or so. Systems tend to get replaced because of lack of vendor support, not really inherent reliability concerns (a generalisation of course). Given that electronics does not appear to 'wear out',(= does not change in performance over time), what mechanism exists to create a possible 'break-in' (= sound improvement over time) phenomenon? Beats me.
And don't forget we're talking about, say, a 10-gauge speaker wire carrying a current of around an amp. Not exactly a major stress.
chinablues
2006-11-22, 08:49
And don't forget we're talking about, say, a 10-gauge speaker wire carrying a current of around an amp. Not exactly a major stress.
I find your responses on cables to be quite excellent, marrying as they do, an element of physics with an elequence of writing. Then again, I've never been into the crystalline nature of copper. R, L and C I can understand. But I'll be the first to admit, my ears are shot and thus likely I cannot hear the difference anyway. This is not to say I cannot understand physics though. It's 11.45 here in Beijing & I'm having a little Caol Ila whilst listening to Keb Mo on the Transporter. Really, its better fun than worring about vibrating cables.
opaqueice
2006-11-22, 18:33
I find your responses on cables to be quite excellent, marrying as they do, an element of physics with an elequence of writing. Then again, I've never been into the crystalline nature of copper. R, L and C I can understand. But I'll be the first to admit, my ears are shot and thus likely I cannot hear the difference anyway. This is not to say I cannot understand physics though. It's 11.45 here in Beijing & I'm having a little Caol Ila whilst listening to Keb Mo on the Transporter. Really, its better fun than worring about vibrating cables.
Thanks for the compliment.
Is it the 18 year old? I gave a bottle of that to my girlfriend, but now I've drunk most of it myself :-). It's become one of my favorites... I can imagine on a smoggy Beijing night it would go down pretty well.
CardinalFang
2006-11-23, 05:17
And don't forget we're talking about, say, a 10-gauge speaker wire carrying a current of around an amp. Not exactly a major stress.
I don't think we're talking about cables wearing out as such, but there is degradation due to corrosion and UV light on insulators for example. The question is, is this a positive or negative effect? If you are carrying AC power to a motor, it really doesn't matter if there's a tiny bit more resistance, but since AC at higher frequencies travels on the surface of cables, a corroding surface may well make things worse for audio - or just different.
chinablues
2006-11-24, 00:47
I don't think we're talking about cables wearing out as such, but there is degradation due to corrosion and UV light on insulators for example. The question is, is this a positive or negative effect? If you are carrying AC power to a motor, it really doesn't matter if there's a tiny bit more resistance, but since AC at higher frequencies travels on the surface of cables, a corroding surface may well make things worse for audio - or just different.
Surface corrosion of copper cables would effectively make the cable slightly thinner...with the current now flowing in this thinner cable. This would make little difference until the cable got exceedingly thin. Agreed there is a slight skin effect at higher frequencies. Whether this is a phenomenon that actually has an audible impact will I believe remain an audiophile discussion topic 'till the ends of time. This is indeed fortunate, for if there were nothing to argue about, life would be that much duller. I am of the what I would categorise as the 'practical engineering' school of thought, or listening and would submit that skin effect does have an impact, but not an audible one that I need to worry about. Elsewhere I believe I have admitted to being totally deaf, so I am discounted as a real audiophile (even although I am very handsome), but I remain fascinated by arguments involving physical phemonena. I refer you to http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/Analog.html for an excellent discussion on skin effect and other audio stuff. (the fact that I'm Scottish myself has of course biased my thinking here)
One quote from this paper in relation to skin effect is as below:
"Despite the above, to an acoustic engineer the delays seem very small. Since sound propagates at a velocity of around 330 m/sec it will only travel around 16 microns in 50 nanoseconds. In effect, therefore, the above differential group delay is equivalent to a sound source that seems 16 microns nearer at high audible frequencies than at low audible frequencies. Again it is not clear that this would be noticeable in a practical situation."
16 microns is pretty small. Not zero, but small. Thinner than the wax in my ear that's for sure. I have to also consider this 16 microns distance due to electronic skin effect to the equivalent situation when one is in an audience listening to perhaps the original music itself, lets say 20m from the stage. Since high frequency sound is attenuated in air much more than low frequency, (thunder cracks at low distance, rumbles at far distance), would the listener in the audience be more affected by differential attenuation of sound spectra in air than would be the same individual listening to the same signal from a hi-fi system in his home, sitting perhaps 3m from the speakers?
So if you are still worried about skin effect in cables, maybe you should also sit closer to your speakers to reduce the attenuation effect of high frequency sound in air.
dan
CardinalFang
2006-11-24, 01:08
Surface corrosion of copper cables would effectively make the cable slightly thinner...with the current now flowing in this thinner cable. This would make little difference until the cable got exceedingly thin.
That's not exactly my point - if the surface is corroded, then the higher frequencies will tend to travel through corroded or oxidised metal. I once worked for an inspection company that measured surface cracks in metal using AC current and measuring voltage drops. It isn't a timing issue, but one of current travelling through a higher resistance surface to the orginal clean surface. And the frequencies don't need to be that high.
Whether you can hear it is debatable, but it can be a genuine effect on cable conductivity.
chinablues
2006-11-24, 01:35
I guess in terms of the corrosive layer, I was thinking of this as a much higher resistance layer than the underlying copper. So much so that the current would preferentially flow in the low resistance copper, than in the higher resistance outer layer, even given the skin effect. Also, the gist of my response was more at the pure skin effect argument. It's amazing though, even if it were possible to end the skin effect debate once and for all, someone would always step up to the plate & say, "All very well my boy, but you were discussing pure copper cable, what about real life cable that has a variable thickness corrosive layer". Great stuff this audiophile business. The real question is, does the drinking and savouring of 18 year old double distilled malt whisky versus the common or garden 12 year old, make a subtle difference to my perception of the sound? It should make me more mellow I'd assume. Why else would I pay for expensive Scotch? I paid more, I think it's better, therefore it is better! I'll do some tests this weekend & let you know. Cheers & have a good weekend.
The real question is, does the drinking and savouring of 18 year old double distilled malt whisky versus the common or garden 12 year old, make a subtle difference to my perception of the sound? It should make me more mellow I'd assume. Why else would I pay for expensive Scotch? I paid more, I think it's better, therefore it is better! I'll do some tests this weekend & let you know. Cheers & have a good weekend.
Now, that is a test I can relate to. Unfortunately, the only whiskey I have at the moment is a cheap Irish one that is barely usable in an Irish coffee!
perhaps its the sand in the ears
chinablues
2006-11-27, 00:14
Agree there is a lot of sand in the air in Beijing, and doubtless some gets into my ears (I presume the remark was referring to me?). I guess my perspective differs from yours & we have to agree to disagree. But with current flowing at close to the speed of light in cables (3x 10^8 m/sec) and sound at around 343m/sec (at 20C) I always come back to the issue of delays (eg due to skin effect in cables) in electrical circuits, versus delays due to sound attenuation in air. For example, since the speed of sound varies by about 0.5m/sec per deg C, the above mentioned 50 nanosec 'skin effect' sound delay has to be compared with a similar speed of sound difference between your two speakers caused by a temperature difference of just 0.1 x10^-6Deg C. (1/10 th of a millionth of a deg C) between path A and path B. On this basis if you breathed in the wrong direction (at speaker A), you'd influence the speed of sound time delay much more than any skin effect in your cables. Ok, you can play with the numbers and maybe someone needs to recheck my maths, but you have to come back to the ratio of speed of sound in air to speed of electrons in copper (1/874635). I agree skin effect can have a physical impact, but is it an audible effect? Does perhaps the temperature stability of the room and where you are sitting have more to do with it?
Then you have to worry about the attenuation of high frequencies in air. About 0.03xF db/meter. (F in kHz). Maybe not a big effect in a normal house, but ball-park i'd guess more than the attenuation of high frequecies due to the skin effect.
Cheers,
dan
SoftwireEngineer
2006-11-27, 02:05
Now, that is a test I can relate to. Unfortunately, the only whiskey I have at the moment is a cheap Irish one that is barely usable in an Irish coffee!
What a coincidence, I just got a Jameson for the Irish coffee. I did not like the Bacardi Gold with my rum cake and did not like it. So I thought a few bucks more for the Jameson is worth it. I did not try the stuff directly. But my sniff test and the irish cream taste shows the Jameson is very smooth.
BTW, you cannot be an audiophile doing LUI (listening Under Influence). But it helps to make you a musicophile, I guess :-) )
chinablues
2006-11-27, 02:18
What a coincidence, I just got a Jameson for the Irish coffee.
Many years ago a friend (lady) came out to visit us in Singapore. She spent the better part of 45 minutes going over the whisky on display at Heathrow. After due consideration, she bought this bottle of 'Scotch'. Jameson! Holy Crow, OK for the coffee and for mixing with coke, but not quite the real McCoy!
opaqueice
2006-11-27, 08:58
The real question is, does the drinking and savouring of 18 year old double distilled malt whisky versus the common or garden 12 year old, make a subtle difference to my perception of the sound? It should make me more mellow I'd assume. Why else would I pay for expensive Scotch? I paid more, I think it's better, therefore it is better! I'll do some tests this weekend & let you know. Cheers & have a good weekend.
Having quite a few of both single malt scotches and skeptical friends, I was once the subject of a blind taste test. My friend picked four scotches from my collection and then tested me to see if I could identify them blind. I was 4/4, which considering she had randomly picked four out of about twenty isn't too bad.
In my mind I can't help comparing that to John Atkinson failing to differentiate between - let alone identify - two supposedly very different amplifiers. But I'm afraid I'm going to start another minor war if I go that way :-).
What a coincidence, I just got a Jameson for the Irish coffee. I did not like the Bacardi Gold with my rum cake and did not like it. So I thought a few bucks more for the Jameson is worth it. I did not try the stuff directly. But my sniff test and the irish cream taste shows the Jameson is very smooth.
BTW, you cannot be an audiophile doing LUI (listening Under Influence). But it helps to make you a musicophile, I guess :-) )
Lucky Guy ;) If I remember correctly, it is Jameson that is the recommended Whiskey for Irish Coffee. And it is quite drinkable on its own as well. My personal favorite Irish whiskey is Bushmills Malt - straight.
I can agree on your comment on LUI. Although I know of people who swear to a glass of redwine before serious listening.
For me a perfect listening evening would be getting some friends over, do some serious listening/testing (new equipment), eat some good food and then enter the LUI (musicophile) stage. Usually ends up with bad hangover the next day though ;)
chinablues
2006-11-27, 09:40
It's past midnight here & I'm down to the old fallback, JW Black Label (from my home town). But get back on track guys, no one's taken my ratio of speed of sound in air to speed of electrons in copper (1/874635) to task yet.
Having quite a few of both single malt scotches and skeptical friends, I was once the subject of a blind taste test. My friend picked four scotches from my collection and then tested me to see if I could identify them blind. I was 4/4, which considering she had randomly picked four out of about twenty isn't too bad.
In my mind I can't help comparing that to John Atkinson failing to differentiate between - let alone identify - two supposedly very different amplifiers. But I'm afraid I'm going to start another minor war if I go that way :-).
I suspect that many people couldn't identify the various scotches in your test. Indeed, the same could be said for the tasting of fine wines, if fact, many prefer a cheap sweet wine to the best dry Cabernet's.
It follows that the appreciation of high end audio gear might be futile for those whose ears might not be sensitive to the subtle nuances that the best gear reveals. For example, not everyone can distinguish the fine differences that are evident with tube rolling or changing interconnects or etc.,etc. For many a boom box is all that is needed.
Raja
chinablues
2006-11-27, 10:05
I suspect that many people couldn't identify the various scotches in your test. Indeed, the same could be said for the tasting of fine wines, if fact, many prefer a cheap sweet wine to the best dry Cabernet's.
It follows that the appreciation of high end audio gear might be futile for those whose ears might not be sensitive to the subtle nuances that the best gear reveals. For example, not everyone can distinguish the fine differences that are evident with tube rolling or changing interconnects or etc.,etc. For many a boom box is all that is needed.
Raja
The long held theory with wines and spirits etc., is that after you've had one or two, your taste buds are numbed in some way. Taste being one of the senses, is it not possible that hearing works in a similar way? Your ears getting tuned to one system and then (as you would postulate) unlike the taste buds, are able to instantaneously adjust to the next sound? You think the sense of hearing has zero time lag? I don't know, but I doubt it. Are ears not subject to 'sound retention or sound effect delay', in the same way as your sense of taste? I play golf, and after a couple of holes it's amazing how my sight 'tunes in' to long distances.
dan
SoftwireEngineer
2006-11-27, 11:59
Lucky Guy ;) If I remember correctly, it is Jameson that is the recommended Whiskey for Irish Coffee. And it is quite drinkable on its own as well. My personal favorite Irish whiskey is Bushmills Malt - straight.
Yes, I got the Jameson as it is the recommended one for the Irish coffee. I did go through some whiskey review sites, since I am not into drinking hard stuff. The only brand I know from childhood days is JW.
Re: Skin effect. Yes, it does not seem plausible (I have a CS/EE degree). But the funny thing. Audio sounds good only when so many things are addressed. Ultimately, it is difficult to tell which one made a difference. Audioquest have always been touting their 'polished' surface wires. Many say, the smooth surface, just reduces the oxidation, causing bad dielectric creation at the conductor/insulation boundaries. So my take is, we need a real scientific investigation into all these, but I am doubtful it will be conclusive. Meanwhile, I do all the 'tweaks' which even has a semblance of credibility, as long as it does not cost me a fortune.
My SB3 seems to have improved over the last two months. Also, I feel switching off the display during playback makes a difference. But I cannot substantiate this.
highdudgeon
2006-11-27, 12:15
Actually, I'm kind of into wine (it helps that my father-in-law runs a highly regarded winery) and definitely into single malts. In my experience, while novices couldn't identify specifically what it was that they *liked* about a particular drink, they could always pick out the "better" one from the lesser one.
Of course, there is the UC Davis oenology department black cup test...where in, yes, double-blind tests experienced tasters scored 50% in distinguishing reds from whites. In another experiment, cheap and expensive wines were poured into different bottles. In a non-blind test, the expensive label wines (which were actually cheap) won the day. This is not a rumor; my brother-in-law went to school there.
When it comes to audio, non-audiophile friends are often only mildly interested, if that much, in my systems. However, they could easily discern the difference between speakers, between movements in speaker position, DACs, etc. In a way, then, one could argue that testing by disinterested parties, while not conclusive, could be very interesting and could even help keep the community honest -- because these people don't come at the project with preconceptions. If you get trained musicians to do it, specifically, it would get very interesting. Why? Because these are people with far more ear training than any non-musician, and that includes audiophiles (quick: how many of you are able to identify and describe subtle key changes? Or perhaps tune a guitar or violin by ear?). Anyway, I digress. The point is that there is a great deal of snobbery and exclusivity in the audiophile community and that is not necessarily a good thing. Someone with a highly trained ear will outclass a non-musical audiophile any day of the week.
There is this, too: audio systems are ultimately about re-producing a live (or produced) music experience. Audio systems are not about audio systems. A common refrain of high praise is that a component "gets out of the way." So, who are you going to trust? Someone who listens to a lot of live music but isn't too interested in audio systems? Or someone who listens to a lot of audio systems but rarely gets out of the house? Someone who knows what a jazz bass sound like in a club or someone who has mostly or exclusively listened to recordings? Or, a musician who can hum 440 cycles or immediately recognize it in human singing, or someone who just listens for "air" around a vocal? Something to think about.
PS, many, many, many excellent wines are sweet, fruity, and full-bodied. Many interesting and very fine cabernets (which are a rather commonplace wine and hardly the most interesting thing) are fruity. Tannic wines are a bit of a more tending toward unpleasant and many "dry" wines fall into that trap.
I suspect that many people couldn't identify the various scotches in your test. Indeed, the same could be said for the tasting of fine wines, if fact, many prefer a cheap sweet wine to the best dry Cabernet's.
It follows that the appreciation of high end audio gear might be futile for those whose ears might not be sensitive to the subtle nuances that the best gear reveals. For example, not everyone can distinguish the fine differences that are evident with tube rolling or changing interconnects or etc.,etc. For many a boom box is all that is needed.
Raja
opaqueice
2006-11-27, 23:27
Of course, there is the UC Davis oenology department black cup test...where in, yes, double-blind tests experienced tasters scored 50% in distinguishing reds from whites. In another experiment, cheap and expensive wines were poured into different bottles. In a non-blind test, the expensive label wines (which were actually cheap) won the day. This is not a rumor; my brother-in-law went to school there.
You know, I had heard this story (about reds vs. whites) before, but I found it pretty hard to believe - so I tried it. We took two reds and two whites and did a blind taste test. We tried to pick reasonably neutral wines (one of the reds was a Beaujolais, for example) so as to make it as hard as possible. Guess what - the difference was completely obvious. It wasn't ever necessary to taste twice, or taste the others before deciding - we immediately knew in each case from the first taste whether the wine was white or red. Try it yourself - it's just impossible to mistake them (at least for ordinary wines; you could of course make a "red" wine by coloring a white without changing the taste, but I assume that's not what you meant).
On the other hand the thing about expensive labels I have no trouble believing - there was an "experiment" like that on a huge scale - the San Francisco wine competition - which clearly demonstrated it.
EDIT - from http://www-ucdmag.ucdavis.edu/fall02/end_notes.html
Trillin came to the source: UC Davis’ Ann Noble, professor of viticulture and enology and expert on sensory science, whose wine aroma wheel has helped scores of novices differentiate between a Pinot Noir and a Zinfandel. Noble’s verdict: The “Davis Test” is an urban myth. The test she gives her students asks them to identify the varietal by use of smell alone. “The minute you put it in your mouth,” she told Trillin, “it’s game over.”
If you get trained musicians to do it, specifically, it would get very interesting. Why? Because these are people with far more ear training than any non-musician, and that includes audiophiles
I seem to recall that some years back it was noted that many professional (classical) musicians in fact owned pretty low-end stereo systems, and seemed perfectly happy with them. The hypothesis was that these people's training meant that they could mentally "fill in" the missing bits.
There is this, too: audio systems are ultimately about re-producing a live (or produced) music experience.
We often hear this argument about live music, but I'm beginning to doubt it, at least as far as rock music is concerned (which is my poison of choice). Simple fact of the matter is that the actual sound in a typical rock concert is dreadful. I mean really, really awful. I certainly don't want to replicate that in my living room. Even at my favourite venue (The Stables at Milton Keynes, which is *much* better than most), the sound is still not really that good. (Of course, live classical or acoustic jazz may very well be a different matter. It's been years since I attended either).
I feel the purpose of an audio system is to create an enjoyable musical experience at home. The chances of having a similar experience to what you get at a live concert seems vanishingly small to me. That doesn't mean that it can't be just as emotionally rewarding - just in a different way.
highdudgeon
2006-11-28, 12:12
Completely agree.
I seem to recall that some years back it was noted that many professional (classical) musicians in fact owned pretty low-end stereo systems, and seemed perfectly happy with them. The hypothesis was that these people's training meant that they could mentally "fill in" the missing bits.
We often hear this argument about live music, but I'm beginning to doubt it, at least as far as rock music is concerned (which is my poison of choice). Simple fact of the matter is that the actual sound in a typical rock concert is dreadful. I mean really, really awful. I certainly don't want to replicate that in my living room. Even at my favourite venue (The Stables at Milton Keynes, which is *much* better than most), the sound is still not really that good. (Of course, live classical or acoustic jazz may very well be a different matter. It's been years since I attended either).
I feel the purpose of an audio system is to create an enjoyable musical experience at home. The chances of having a similar experience to what you get at a live concert seems vanishingly small to me. That doesn't mean that it can't be just as emotionally rewarding - just in a different way.
[QUOTE=cliveb;157992]I seem to recall that some years back it was noted that many professional (classical) musicians in fact owned pretty low-end stereo systems, and seemed perfectly happy with them. The hypothesis was that these people's training meant that they could mentally "fill in" the missing bits.
As a classical musician, I resemble that remark:-)
I completely agree. This was 1st pointed out to me by a hi-end dealer in Seattle in the 70's
I spent a summer there doing a lot of "audiophile" ear training so that I didn't fill in the parts.
He was the 1st to teach me about soundstaging, imaging etc.
Anyone can train their ear if they work at it and a bit of help from someone knowledgable goes a long way.
Once the brain knows what to listen for it is a lot easier to hear it.Musicians might have a slight INITIAL advantage in audio ear training since they are already used to ear training
eg. training the mind / ear connection, but I think that advantage is leveled out after a short time if one works at it.
highdudgeon
2006-11-28, 12:42
Sounds reasonable to me. Still, though, being a guitarist like yourself (and violinist), I think I'm perhaps more aware of some fine points of instrument reproduction -- as opposed to audiophile stuff -- AND the slight business of mic set up, etc., than others. I couldn't say the same for the piano, even though my wife is an excellent pianist and we have an oft-played baby grand in the living room. Good point, though. Everything is a matter of practice.
I do think the the one sine qua non is just having experience of live music. If only for your soul, right?
[QUOTE=cliveb;157992]I seem to recall that some years back it was noted that many professional (classical) musicians in fact owned pretty low-end stereo systems, and seemed perfectly happy with them. The hypothesis was that these people's training meant that they could mentally "fill in" the missing bits.
As a classical musician, I resemble that remark:-)
I completely agree. This was 1st pointed out to me by a hi-end dealer in Seattle in the 70's
I spent a summer there doing a lot of "audiophile" ear training so that I didn't fill in the parts.
He was the 1st to teach me about soundstaging, imaging etc.
Anyone can train their ear if they work at it and a bit of help from someone knowledgable goes a long way.
Once the brain knows what to listen for it is a lot easier to hear it.Musicians might have a slight INITIAL advantage in audio ear training since they are already used to ear training
eg. training the mind / ear connection, but I think that advantage is leveled out after a short time if one works at it.
geraint smith
2006-11-28, 13:15
I seem to recall that some years back it was noted that many professional (classical) musicians in fact owned pretty low-end stereo systems, and seemed perfectly happy with them. The hypothesis was that these people's training meant that they could mentally "fill in" the missing bits.
We often hear this argument about live music, but I'm beginning to doubt it, at least as far as rock music is concerned (which is my poison of choice). Simple fact of the matter is that the actual sound in a typical rock concert is dreadful. I mean really, really awful. I certainly don't want to replicate that in my living room. Even at my favourite venue (The Stables at Milton Keynes, which is *much* better than most), the sound is still not really that good. (Of course, live classical or acoustic jazz may very well be a different matter. It's been years since I attended either).
I feel the purpose of an audio system is to create an enjoyable musical experience at home. The chances of having a similar experience to what you get at a live concert seems vanishingly small to me. That doesn't mean that it can't be just as emotionally rewarding - just in a different way.
Do you really think so? Personally, I want my set up to reproduce the exact acoustic of a Deep Purple concert I went to in 1972 in Trentham Gardens, Staffordshire. I've used a PC based digital correction system to apply reverb as similar as possible to an outdoor ambience and to knock off anything over about 10kHz, and have additionally programmed it to produce random bursts of simulated wild howlround. Then I've added a couple of 18 inch drivers salvaged from a Stazi interrogation centre, and a REL Strata V, then wrapped the whole speaker array in a layer of acoustically treated sponge and the sub woofers in an additional blanket, (adding 22.73dB of gain to compensate, of course). That's in addition to the £300 a metre cryogenically treated cables and £1000 upgraded power cables, of course, and the bass traps and other acoustic treatment, there just to help the digital stuff. Well, wow, is all I can say. I mean, I could be 400 yards from the stage. Brilliant.
Mind you, the Dowland sounds bloody awful.
What? Did I say something wrong?
Sounds reasonable to me. Still, though, being a guitarist like yourself (and violinist), I think I'm perhaps more aware of some fine points of instrument reproduction -- as opposed to audiophile stuff -- AND the slight business of mic set up, etc., than others. I couldn't say the same for the piano, even though my wife is an excellent pianist and we have an oft-played baby grand in the living room. Good point, though. Everything is a matter of practice.
I do think the the one sine qua non is just having experience of live music. If only for your soul, right?
[QUOTE=tomjtx;158098]
I agree. I am probably better at judging the sound quality of classical guitar recordings than a non classical guitarist. There are some advantages:eg. hearing that very performer live on the same instrument( a few times in my living room)
Once I had a guitarist sit between my speakers and play and then switch to his CD playing the same piece and guitar.....that was fun.............live was better...........
until I put the bybees in:-)
highdudgeon
2006-11-28, 14:54
Actually, Robert Greene (the reviewer) did this test -- he is an accomplished violinist -- with himself as the subject playing between a set of Dali Megalines. The result: uncanny. An observer, including himself, could barely tell the one from the other.
This just says so much about speakers and speakers that really get it right. Having forty grand on hand for your audio budget doesn't hurt, either! My short list of truly great speakers with which I have a good bit of experience are: Harbeth Monitor 40s, Dali MS5es, Dali Megalines, McIntosh XRT 28s, Gradient Revolutions, any Quad ESL, any Sound Lab, and one or two others. Their trick is that, with one exception (the Harbeth) they are fairly immune to room interaction problems, at least when properly positioned (IE, electrostatics need to be away from the wall). Dali makes wonderful speakers.
There are many others. I've heard Wilsons and really like them, for instance, but I don't have enough sit-down time with them to comment.
[QUOTE=highdudgeon;158105]Sounds reasonable to me. Still, though, being a guitarist like yourself (and violinist), I think I'm perhaps more aware of some fine points of instrument reproduction -- as opposed to audiophile stuff -- AND the slight business of mic set up, etc., than others. I couldn't say the same for the piano, even though my wife is an excellent pianist and we have an oft-played baby grand in the living room. Good point, though. Everything is a matter of practice.
I do think the the one sine qua non is just having experience of live music. If only for your soul, right?
I agree. I am probably better at judging the sound quality of classical guitar recordings than a non classical guitarist. There are some advantages:eg. hearing that very performer live on the same instrument( a few times in my living room)
Once I had a guitarist sit between my speakers and play and then switch to his CD playing the same piece and guitar.....that was fun.............live was better...........
until I put the bybees in:-)
Actually, Robert Greene (the reviewer) did this test -- he is an accomplished violinist -- with himself as the subject playing between a set of Dali Megalines. The result: uncanny. An observer, including himself, could barely tell the one from the other.
This just says so much about speakers and speakers that really get it right. Having forty grand on hand for your audio budget doesn't hurt, either! My short list of truly great speakers with which I have a good bit of experience are: Harbeth Monitor 40s, Dali MS5es, Dali Megalines, McIntosh XRT 28s, Gradient Revolutions, any Quad ESL, any Sound Lab, and one or two others. Their trick is that, with one exception (the Harbeth) they are fairly immune to room interaction problems, at least when properly positioned (IE, electrostatics need to be away from the wall). Dali makes wonderful speakers.
There are many others. I've heard Wilsons and really like them, for instance, but I don't have enough sit-down time with them to comment.
[QUOTE=tomjtx;158110]
I,ve done the same , recording myself and other , then sit betweens the speakers and play................it's very close with the watts
highdudgeon
2006-11-28, 16:50
That's really cool, Tom!
[QUOTE=highdudgeon;158137]Actually, Robert Greene (the reviewer) did this test -- he is an accomplished violinist -- with himself as the subject playing between a set of Dali Megalines. The result: uncanny. An observer, including himself, could barely tell the one from the other.
This just says so much about speakers and speakers that really get it right. Having forty grand on hand for your audio budget doesn't hurt, either! My short list of truly great speakers with which I have a good bit of experience are: Harbeth Monitor 40s, Dali MS5es, Dali Megalines, McIntosh XRT 28s, Gradient Revolutions, any Quad ESL, any Sound Lab, and one or two others. Their trick is that, with one exception (the Harbeth) they are fairly immune to room interaction problems, at least when properly positioned (IE, electrostatics need to be away from the wall). Dali makes wonderful speakers.
There are many others. I've heard Wilsons and really like them, for instance, but I don't have enough sit-down time with them to comment.
I,ve done the same , recording myself and other , then sit betweens the speakers and play................it's very close with the watts
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.